Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:32:32 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>, Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-vuxml@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/portaudit-db/database portaudit.txt portaudit.xlist portaudit.xml Message-ID: <20040822213232.GE17478@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <20040817175847.GC43426@madman.celabo.org> References: <20040817122453.05edaaea@localhost> <56FC3488-F075-11D8-924A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040817175847.GC43426@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:58:47PM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > [Moving to freebsd-vuxml ... oh how I wish Bcc worked so that people on > the other list knew where this went :-) ] > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 07:46:16PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > > When you can live with the dummy text produced by my perl script > > ("Please contact the FreeBSD Security Team for more information.") and > > we can make the `discovered' entry optional, fine with me. I can write > > a `make entry' perl script that parses a form an generates a template > > entry, send-pr like. > > FWIW, this sounds fine by me, except about the <discovered> part. > I see your point about it though... it may be dangerous to have a > bogus value (like the date of entry), because it may not get corrected > later. But I don't want it optional, so that it is not forgotten. > Perhaps we need the possiblity of marking something explicitly > <unspecified> for such occassions ... OK, so this has been in the back of my mind for the past few days, and I feel pretty strongly about requiring certain portions of the VuXML entry. During the development of the DTD, it was basically decided that in order to be useful, each entry *must* provide the following information: (I'm repeating some of what is in the DTD in English prose here :-) - A "one-liner" <topic> - What is <affected>. (If nothing is affected, it shouldn't be included.) - A brief or even incredibly rich <description> of the problem, including details specific to the particular packaging system or vendor. Quotes of other security advisories are fine. - At least one entry in <references>. It is highly recommended that a CVE name be included, but this is not always possible. There should certainly at least be a public email or source file to which to point. - The date the issue was first disclosed (this was possibly mis-named <discovery>). - The <entry> date of this issue into the document So in this thread and another, Oliver has requested that <discovery> and <description> be made optional. I understand that this is due to a desire to be able to make "quick" entries. But I have to wonder, how does this really help? I feel very strongly that a <description> must be required. If one cannot provide even a quote from some other source, then one has not properly researched the issue. It *is* possible, of course, to specify a description like <description> <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <p>Description not yet available.</p> </body> </description> or even <description> <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p /></body> </description> and still have a valid VuXML document, but this is certainly not within the spirit of even "quick" documentation. So, as an editor, I wouldn't prohibit such entries, just frown on them :-) I mean, if one has the single reference required, then one certainly has something to quote. I feel less strongly about the <discovery> element (as mentioned in my earlier message quoted above). But still, after reflection I do not think that it should be optional. I routinely set this to be the earliest public notice that I've found when looking for references. I have never felt that it was difficult to decide. In my case, I have to be a little more careful because I don't want to include a date earlier than any public reference (even if I was included in private discussion many weeks earlier). But most people don't have to deal with that issue. Finally, if an earlier reference eventually turns up, the <discovery> date can be modified, no big deal. However, I must admit that I have some doubt the value of the <discovery> date in any case. What I'd really like to hear are some arguments for keeping it or getting rid of it! I think it is useful information of itself to many reading VuXML content, and that combined with <entry> it provides a good metric about our response time. But I could be overestimating the value of it, and if it somehow puts people off to need to provide this information, then maybe it loses. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / nectar@celabo.org / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040822213232.GE17478>