Re: [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

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.

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