On 07/31/2018 01:19 PM, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> 1. If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is open against a
package
> in Fedora-X and by the time X is EOL and the issue is not addressed,
> proactively remove the package from X+1
By the time FX is EOL'ed it's too late even for FX+2 to drop the
package. Besides of that CVE could be fixed in FX+2 but not fixed in FX
so the logic should be a way more complex.
Sure, the above is just a proposal. We could perhaps drop it while FX+2
is beta etc. I am open to idea, as long as there is a way we could exit
the package if it has a consistently bad security record.
Also if CVE is fixed in FX+2 and will not be fixed in FX, the bug
against FX should be closed as wontfix!
> 2. If a MODERATE or LOW security issue is open against a package
in
> Fedora -X and by the time X+! is EOL, the issue is not addressed, remove
> it from X+2
Same here.
>
> Note:
> 1. Once pkg is patches, it can be rebuild and re-introduced into the distro
> 2. X/X+1 is the best boundary to remove the insecure packages imo, since
> inbetween removals are not possible due to the way mirrors work.
> 3. Maintain a list somewhere (automated maybe) of the list of packages
> removed and why.
> 4. Have a list of critical pkg, which cannot be removed which will break
> the distro.
>
> The above is not set in stone, but is open for discussion. Let me know
> what you guys think!
>
> In the end, i would like you leave you all with this parting link:
>
https://sensorstechforum.com/arch-linux-aur-repository-found-contain-malw...
>
> [1]
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1935
> [2]
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASS...
--
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala / Red Hat Product Security Team