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 On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, 23:23 Jens-Ulrik Petersen, <peter...@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, <py0...@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 Subject: Fedora package "pandoc" outdated and contains security 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: py0...@posteo.net >> To: peter...@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@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
