From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?4oCYZ3VpeCBsaW504oCZ?= CVE checker
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 16:37:25 +0100
Message-ID: <87610muocq.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87d1uwgz7r.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvtzbw6w.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87io4nunp5.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55946)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1a2hZ6-0004BV-2U
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:37:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1a2hZ2-0000sV-Pp
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:37:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87io4nunp5.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 27
	Nov 2015 16:39:18 -0500")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis:
>>
>>> The libxml2/libxslt issues are actually patched, but since we didn=E2=
=80=99t
>>> change the version number, the tool assumes that our packages are
>>> vulnerable.  We should change version numbers in the future when
>>> patching vulnerabilities.
>>
>> Alternately, =E2=80=98lint=E2=80=99 could check the package=E2=80=99s pa=
tches and silence the
>> warning if there are patches whose name contain the offending CVE ID.
>
> Yes, I think this is the right approach.

Done in 4e70fe4.

> If changing the version number effectively disables this entire
> mechanism, that seems like an inferior approach, because if more CVEs
> are later discovered, we won't be notified, iiuc.  Is that right?

Correct.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.