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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
