From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Feb 27 19:30:47 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBF6F1E64F; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:30:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marquis@roble.com) Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [209.237.23.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7DBE6B09D; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:30:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marquis@roble.com) Received: from roble.com (roble.com [209.237.23.50]) by mx5.roble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47824195; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:30:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:30:38 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: [tor-relays] FreeBSD 11.1 ZFS Tor Image In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1778362.rEQJjLh0zu@beastie> <735f5c0a-f6a3-adb4-c615-7e0ce8fb6dea@queair.net> <20180225215044.vzuablpgcweaxwlh@mutt-hbsd> <2537598.fuWUYQZvu7@beastie> <20180225221733.o6jrgeo2d5mfdegg@mutt-hbsd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:30:47 -0000 Shawn Webb wrote: > There's no need for ROP, JOP, SROP, etc. on FreeBSD. FreeBSD is > literally stuck in 1999-era security. This is doubly true for ports, including Tor. I submitted a vuxml entry for apache-tomcat 5 days ago that still has not been committed. A follow-up resulted in two replies from a helpful member of the ports-secteam, but which took as long to write as the vulxml would have taken to validate and commit. Its CVE is priority 7 (remotely exploitable) but almost a week later pkg audit still won't tell you if you're running an exploitable Tomcat. The explanation I received is that the ports-secteam is a volunteer effort and nobody really expects 'pkg audit' to be timely anyhow. Such easily fixable problems. Even the FreeBSD Foundation for all the projects it funds, and could fund with +$2.5M in the bank, doesn't seem to care. Roger Marquis