From: Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mariano Lopez <mariano.lopez@linux.intel.com>,
openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org,
openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org,
openembedded-architecture
<openembedded-architecture@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <567044A7.8050505@balister.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450197453.13505.72.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
On 12/15/2015 11:37 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 11:30 -0500, Philip Balister wrote:
>> I also suggest copying the
>>
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-security
>>
>> list.
>
> and the architecture list, this is something that should apply to more
> than OE-Core ideally.
I thought the exact same thing seconds after hitting send. I'll let the
security and architecture people decide which list is best for discussion.
What I do want to see is fewer discussions cross posted across many lists.
Philip
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
>> Philip
>>
>> On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, Mariano Lopez wrote:
>>> There is an initiative to track vulnerable software being built
>>> (see
>>> bugs 8119 and 7515). The idea is to have a testing tool that would
>>> check
>>> the recipe versions against CVEs. In order to accomplish such task
>>> there
>>> is need to reliable mark the patches from upstream that solve CVEs.
>>>
>>> There have been two options to mark the patches that solve CVEs:
>>>
>>> 1. Have "CVE" and the CVE number as the patch filename.
>>> Pros:
>>> Doesn't require a new tag.
>>> Cons:
>>> It is not flexible to add more information, for example two
>>> CVEs in
>>> the same patch
>>>
>>> 2. Add a new tag in the patch that have the CVE information.
>>> Pros:
>>> It is flexible and can add more information.
>>> Cons:
>>> Require a change in the patch metadata.
>>>
>>> What I would recommend is to add a new tag in the patch, it must
>>> contain
>>> the CVE ID. With this it would be possible to look for the CVE
>>> information easily in the testing tool or in NIST, MITRE, or
>>> another web
>>> page. For example, this would be part of the patch for CVE-2013
>>> -6435,
>>> currently in OE-Core:
>>>
>>> -- snip --
>>>
>>> Upstream-Status: Backport
>>> CVE: CVE-2013-6435
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-6435
>>>
>>> -- snip --
>>>
>>> The expected output of this discussion is a standard format for CVE
>>> patches that most, if not all, of community members agree on.
>>>
>>> Please let me know your comments.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Mariano Lopez
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mariano Lopez <mariano.lopez@linux.intel.com>,
openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org,
openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org,
openembedded-architecture
<openembedded-architecture@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <567044A7.8050505@balister.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450197453.13505.72.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
On 12/15/2015 11:37 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 11:30 -0500, Philip Balister wrote:
>> I also suggest copying the
>>
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-security
>>
>> list.
>
> and the architecture list, this is something that should apply to more
> than OE-Core ideally.
I thought the exact same thing seconds after hitting send. I'll let the
security and architecture people decide which list is best for discussion.
What I do want to see is fewer discussions cross posted across many lists.
Philip
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
>> Philip
>>
>> On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, Mariano Lopez wrote:
>>> There is an initiative to track vulnerable software being built
>>> (see
>>> bugs 8119 and 7515). The idea is to have a testing tool that would
>>> check
>>> the recipe versions against CVEs. In order to accomplish such task
>>> there
>>> is need to reliable mark the patches from upstream that solve CVEs.
>>>
>>> There have been two options to mark the patches that solve CVEs:
>>>
>>> 1. Have "CVE" and the CVE number as the patch filename.
>>> Pros:
>>> Doesn't require a new tag.
>>> Cons:
>>> It is not flexible to add more information, for example two
>>> CVEs in
>>> the same patch
>>>
>>> 2. Add a new tag in the patch that have the CVE information.
>>> Pros:
>>> It is flexible and can add more information.
>>> Cons:
>>> Require a change in the patch metadata.
>>>
>>> What I would recommend is to add a new tag in the patch, it must
>>> contain
>>> the CVE ID. With this it would be possible to look for the CVE
>>> information easily in the testing tool or in NIST, MITRE, or
>>> another web
>>> page. For example, this would be part of the patch for CVE-2013
>>> -6435,
>>> currently in OE-Core:
>>>
>>> -- snip --
>>>
>>> Upstream-Status: Backport
>>> CVE: CVE-2013-6435
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-6435
>>>
>>> -- snip --
>>>
>>> The expected output of this discussion is a standard format for CVE
>>> patches that most, if not all, of community members agree on.
>>>
>>> Please let me know your comments.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Mariano Lopez
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-15 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-15 16:03 [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches Mariano Lopez
2015-12-15 16:26 ` [OE-core] " Otavio Salvador
2015-12-15 16:26 ` Otavio Salvador
2015-12-15 16:30 ` [OE-core] " Philip Balister
2015-12-15 16:30 ` Philip Balister
2015-12-15 16:37 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2015-12-15 16:37 ` Richard Purdie
2015-12-15 16:49 ` Philip Balister [this message]
2015-12-15 16:49 ` Philip Balister
2015-12-15 17:13 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2015-12-15 17:13 ` Richard Purdie
2015-12-15 17:17 ` [OE-core] " Mariano Lopez
2015-12-15 17:17 ` Mariano Lopez
2015-12-16 9:03 ` Sona Sarmadi
2015-12-16 9:21 ` [OE-core] " Burton, Ross
2015-12-16 9:21 ` Burton, Ross
2016-01-04 18:25 ` [OE-core] " Mariano Lopez
2016-01-04 18:25 ` Mariano Lopez
2016-01-04 20:17 ` [OE-core] " Benjamin Esquivel
2016-01-04 20:17 ` [oe] " Benjamin Esquivel
2016-01-08 15:22 ` [OE-core] " Mariano Lopez
2016-01-08 15:22 ` [oe] " Mariano Lopez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=567044A7.8050505@balister.org \
--to=philip@balister.org \
--cc=mariano.lopez@linux.intel.com \
--cc=openembedded-architecture@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.