On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:29:40PM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 2/9/17, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:25:43AM +0100, wm4 wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 22:07:24 +0100 > >> Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi all > >> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 03:51:11AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 07:46:55PM -0400, compn wrote: > >> > > > hello, > >> > > > > >> > > > some of you know that we have a list for security / CVE issues. > >> > > > some of you did not know this. > >> > > > > >> > > > i think it is a private list due to not wanting people to make > >> > > > exploits > >> > > > before we have a chance to fix them. of course, if no one is > >> > > > subscribed > >> > > > to review/fix issues then they will never get fixed. > >> > > > > >> > > > so if you are a regular developer who wants access to this list, > >> > > > please > >> > > > speak up. > >> > > > > >> > > > i do not run nor admin the security email/list (nor do i know who > >> > > > does) > >> > > > so please dont ask me questions about it. > >> > > > >> > > I guess, i "de facto" admin the security "email/list". > >> > > if someone wants to help with security issues, mail me > >> > > > >> > > but there are no open security issues and if there was one i very > >> > > likely would fix it ASAP > >> > > >> > A small update due to never? before seen interrest in ffmpeg-security > >> > in the recent weeks/months > >> > > >> > How to get on the ffmpeg-security "list" > >> > > >> > People working on security in FFmpeg, thats maybe fixing many coverity > >> > issues, backporingt fixes to releases, maintaining FFmpeg releases, ... > >> > have an obsession with fixing bugs about undefined behavior or bugs > >> > about crashes and race conditions on trac. Or an obsession with testing > >> > every bugfix and who want and need access to ffmpeg-security should > >> > be on ffmpeg-security > >> > In short people on ffmpeg-security should need to be on ffmpeg-security > >> > If you fall in this kind of category, please mail me > >> > > >> > Or someone who reviews commits and obtains CVE#s for everything that > >> > could be exploitable ... > >> > > >> > I dont think we should give access to ffmpeg-security to everyone who > >> > wants to be on the list. This is of course something the community > >> > has to decide and not me, iam just err-ing on the safe side and am very > >> > restrictive on who is added. > >> > > >> > About the content i must warn you the list is really not very > >> > interresting as in trying to find together with debian someone at > >> > chromium who knows what the CVEs they registered about FFmpeg actually > >> > are about ... and then it embarassingly is a patch on ffmpeg-devel > >> > that is stuck in review and not applied and now i can redo the releases > >> > ... > >> > ... Where are the people caring about security ? why did they not > >> > pick these 2 public patches up, change what they felt needs changing > >> > and pushed them ? > >> > and there are the fuzz samples that need more than 20sec, these are > >> > the main type of reported issue recently after ive succeeded to stop > >> > the oom kind. > >> > > >> > Also there are no open security(*) issues i know of, and if there would > >> > be i likely would fix them ASAP. Not saying that help is unwelcome > >> > or that its impossible for me to make a mistake or miss something ... > >> > > >> > (*) I assume here that fuzz samples taking more than 20sec or integer > >> > overflows in DSP code arent security issues. Iam working on fixing > >> > these too but for this category there are open issues. > >> > > >> > PS: If you want access to the oss-fuzz reports, they all seem > >> > automatically public 7 days after being fixed > >> > > >> > [...] > >> > > >> > >> I'd like to get on the ffmpeg-security mailing list to review patches. > > > > Thats appreciated, though theres a problem, there rarely are patches > > on that "list". Besides there is no mailing list this is just a mail > > alias > > > > if i search for "~cffmpeg-security ~b\\+\\+\\+" i see only 54 matches > > in the whole history of the list in my inbox most of which are > > duplicates in quotes of replies > > so maybe there were less than 20 patches ever posted to that list. > > also patches tend to be CC-ed to developers knowing the code or commit > > related to a issue, like ronald and james for the http fix in december > > or paul and martin for the exr patch in august > > > > If the community wants me to add every FFmpeg maintainer who wants > > to be on the alias, i can do that. But in the absence of a clear > > community decission (poll/vote) on the inclusion criteria iam reluctant > > to add anyone without a strong reason. There occasionally is > > information or files posted that could be used in the construction of > > an exploit prior to everyone updating, so the fewer addresses it is > > sent to the better. > > So others are sending CVE reports directly to you?
Not sure i understand the question. Most security stuff is sent to the ffmpeg-security "list / alias", there is occasional something that is sent to me directly. Maybe some people trust me more than the alias i dont know. Either way locally both end in my inbox, i dont have a seperate folder for ffmpeg-security, i like havig it in my inbox so i see it asap and dont miss it just because i dont look in a seperate "folder" if you meant ~cffmpeg-security vs ~tffmpeg-security there were only 10 matches for ~tffmpeg-security ~b\\+\\+\\+ so i quoted ~c [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
