From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Fwd: Should package.el support notifying on package security updates? Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:40:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87r12qm4q5.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1vus4xy.fsf@rfc20.org> <86y1vul261.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18512"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 12 23:41:54 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oMcPi-0004dk-KD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 23:41:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46290 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oMcPh-0005Cx-8R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:41:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58934) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oMcP0-0004Vl-MZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:41:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:53037) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oMcOv-0004di-0Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:41:08 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72EAC8076F; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0863480626; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:41:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1660340462; bh=VmcLLlIGpZiaEgjSuxeFYKq6TNcrei/RSfPFPND47AY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=hsK5Eoi3hNpu2a5+Dz2Qv4Wn0f9p6g63a3bnp8Xj4P4Jq7iw4OHCfon2gqGxWZ4VT BYzoA1cqgExCCVjxlhfiONoLmoTxVbb1w0n76X7Jl/dWVjh68vvCnUgWGir5nBmUR2 n65gANWTtN5ETgnRAMDiIHt3MedmonbJDysU/XGJ2pYRzCc21DMOJKsJvNrP/W38oZ wT6cLlJDBkJAKUAwhOgtre9+hsL86+XkdMOPjUMUYBf2yNeI22rdUQg5lW55/HB3n1 Et663dJzPEHg5s08StlHlhnlbBwLZ0HRMF10LHS40oA8zV5u2aH85GDM87XBbExvNk z3H0x3yUZrOjQ== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.195.111]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0506120475; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:41:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <86y1vul261.fsf@gmail.com> (Tim Cross's message of "Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:29:22 +1000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:293394 Archived-At: > - There are actually very few security issues reported for Elisp > packages. This doesn't mean there aren't any, only that they are > discovered and reported very rarely. Agreed. And I suspect that security issues are much more common than are reported. [ Lots of Emacs packages are written under the implicit assumption that the current buffer contains something mildly-trustworthy. ] > - It would require package maintainers to somehow flag that an update is > a security update rather than just a standard update. As it is already > somewhat challenging to get many package maintainers to include > consistent change logs in their packages, I suspect then also asking > them to distinguish security updates from normal updatges may be > asking too much. I'm not sure it would be a big problem. But I'm not sure it would be an improvement either. Especially because I suspect it might give the false impression that the code of ELisp packages is somewhat security-conscious, whereas in my experience, the vast majority of Emacs packages isn't (they may end up secure by accident, of course). Stefan