On 09/02/2024 16.26, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
I should also have added there's an increasing amount of
technical debt
with the pandoc packaging - I guess I need to beg people to help with
package reviews: also reminded of our packaging (review) streamlining
discussion from Flock last year.
Jens
Unfortunately, I couldn't attend last Flock, so I don't know the
related
discussion. But I will have a look on the current review guidelines in
the next days, in order to check if this is a commitment I can reliably
provide over time. Maybe I can support with this. I'll let you know if so.
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, 23:23 Jens-Ulrik Petersen, <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello I am here - thanks for contacting me.
>>
>> I was hoping to cover this as part of my F40 Change, but unfortunately I
>> haven't gotten to it, so the Change is now at risk of being deferred to F41.
>>
>> Nevertheless I will see what I can do about this for F40: maybe a backport
>> can also be done for F39.
>>
>> Next time you could also comment on the relevant bug:
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996301 - that would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks, Jens
>>
>> PS Special thanks to Neal Gompa for pinging me in Matrix. 🙏
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, 20:05 Christopher Klooz, <py0xc3(a)posteo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot reach the maintainer petersen (see mail below): The package
>>> "pandoc" remains at 3.1.3 in Fedora, but pandoc is already at
3.1.11.1.
>>> Among the updates since 3.1.3, there have been two security-critical
>>> (including the medium CVE-2023-35936. Security fixes are in 3.1.4 &
3.1.6).
>>>
>>> The actual risk is limited, but these should be updated nevertheless.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how to reach him by other means?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: Fedora package "pandoc" outdated and contains security
>>> vulnerability
>>> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:55:09 +0100
>>> From: py0xc3(a)posteo.net
>>> To: petersen(a)fedoraproject.org
>>>
>>> Hi petersen,
>>>
>>> I am reaching out because of the package "pandoc", which you
maintain.
>>>
>>> I have seen that the package is still at version 3.1.3 [1] when I tried
>>> to install it with dnf, whereas the current version is 3.1.11.1 [2]: is
>>> this intended or an accident?
>>>
>>> It has to be noted that the updates that have been added in the meantime
>>> contain fixes for security vulnerabilities (at least CVE-2023-35936; I have
>>> just roughly skimmed the changelogs). So at the moment, it seems the Fedora
>>> build can be exploited by attackers in some circumstances [3] [4] because
>>> it is still at 3.1.3.
>>>
>>> Regards & thanks for maintaining,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> [1]
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11560
>>>
>>> [2]
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/pandoc &
>>>
https://github.com/jgm/pandoc
>>>
>>> [3]
https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/releases?page=1
>>>
>>> [4]
https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/releases?page=2
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
>>>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>>> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>> List Archives:
>>>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>>>
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>>>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue