From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Request to backport fix for CVE-2022-45939 to Emacs 28 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:28:01 +0200 Message-ID: <837cwjcdv2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <85f35c42-cfe8-44a7-a9c1-307acc5c17d4@Spark> <09998122-0110-454f-94d1-e29c37b833f4@Spark> <83sff9e1is.fsf@gnu.org> <838rh0e64j.fsf@gnu.org> <86ttzougu2.fsf@gmail.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2429"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: lx@shellcodes.org, comms@dabrev.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 15 13:29:03 2023 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 1pSGuF-0000Qy-M9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:29:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pSGta-00044Q-OB; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:28:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pSGtZ-00044H-QR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:28:21 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pSGtX-0008Q1-Pb; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:28:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=keT1HsjNvwMTYAccPXvXoYdgZsuDpvV7OsZ08ALmBSA=; b=MaxpCN8C3vVe CUILMQwM2lc9c9U/1i9bBJ7Mq/ijmo9pMoDLbGeIEfuGLkbdtTg6BNTAEdcdJp7cgfcuClgIB9AXP 5AQQCjE6hZbQHuAqxvLaIucXZ5G6bj3yjJfF7iblpZydiEFvusjM6wpJkxBdMylEEvUHj6PjeBBSM JPD8ceqdGFOa4uobVyHaO+CShjImprntQqgOIkrUy26urggtvzWG+iOGUHgISDYIwNczNbn3oOdJa BFVgkcvoMJCqPi7geYWQajn8/kLzlZFTpwqJH33aoAljvgdy6q/+nTeTs4j8P2fpzMODuZcipd9Pj 2rUS+VDvzbkEePxLdt9SZA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pSGtX-0002I8-9H; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:28:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <86ttzougu2.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Tim Cross on Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:10:58 +1100) 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:303301 Archived-At: > From: Tim Cross > Cc: lux , comms@dabrev.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:10:58 +1100 > > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > But that is not what the OP requested: he requested that we also > > produce an Emacs 28.3 release. And that is a much larger job, for > > which we currently don't have the time or resources. > > While I understand the resourcing issues, I think this is the wrong > decision. We are in the situation where the current released version of > Emacs has a known security exploit with a severity classification of > high (although this assessment seems to be under review) and the > response seems to be "Sorry, we are too busy trying to get the next > version released to deal with this". If we were actually close to an > Emacs 29 release, then perhaps this would be reasonable, but we don't > even have a release candidate out yet. > > Failing to address a high security vulnerability for months is a > disservice for the emacs user base and likely to be a blight on Emacs' > reputation and only provides those against free software with free > ammunition. In addition to the technical aspects of a security > vulnerability, perception is just as important. While the specific > technical aspects of this vulnerability would seem to indicate only a > subset of etags users are actually exposed to this risk, such detail is > likely to be lost amongst the FUD which tends to accompany security > issues. Would you like to work on preparing an Emacs 28.3 tarball? The instructions are in admin/make-tarball.txt and a couple of additional files to which it points. TIA