From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Apr 19 22:30:23 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57276D462A9 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36309D0C for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 32C2ED462A8; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BC4D462A7 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECB87D0B for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o22so43361199iod.3 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:30:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2qPN9WcHftveIOcl1SjU/LOKAbmhIm0R2u7WHs0/3CI=; b=b4mLR/HEL+EhIPmElb7O+EJgwDZEC88c6H96Z82AyoEovc1mFIxLogG94gO4FTlBQK h9kMgCvfU5IFWeAcbqoY8WB4NZNJHGDMk8Kw7Bb4YGuv5fOWTum3m+N9gGHXsixeC4bz Rbv7gjk+3nMfkxQSxFUXiZF09DHyTHYY8NXJcdfbgLPFS00A3jKaNXcAALgxSINNFKJE Gu8dNAjY/o9JIyTv4z/EGSGhXIqx9cJmO3uS6wSf7/+l0HYzahD7PN/xrWD64sRb/Nn3 LVU9g14dfWgj3lTIE4HxWcfAvJsEeg6/dzZ0HfbD0HBB9PaCMJIRz8E6W64Px3mTmMwq Oh5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2qPN9WcHftveIOcl1SjU/LOKAbmhIm0R2u7WHs0/3CI=; b=d4Qqp2zSnWTNst6vgrVDLbWJn7olJhg/pIoK9cKKKDa3bBvCtL9ueHZbPaQyv1u80J jIxbSr+dHOS04y/C7BmAS2gcirt/Pmo1aV1Ar6vvKIy2XBZUI68QPTvzNkBHkj40IkGf 95r/1kZW5i1p2U4yNexqFQhA0n5jVNHoqxfFc46RmaEpdFVB6cSP8wYma59x81epi9F2 lE4Z+6pvZUVIN5trqDvzXLRbD7Idoa5DQWBk1+sChN+Ra45wm+RaCjdYAcUy/CIvYGEM sQBdq1ExWQbG+K+6zvCP3nwFjvsbHe2G+nvee0f4qW5DRSpxE8KNuqbqNT0OTZiCC+6N G2pQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4NTWfDM7UD0WhHliO8tKGmdd1oa/Wi84jIb28ogLI9WMTzbYHj gAclHwzALCdUlIvmY+LAdPQFcauwEQ== X-Received: by 10.36.19.193 with SMTP id 184mr358949itz.93.1492641021682; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:30:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.160.151 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <58F61A8D.1030309@a1poweruser.com> From: Dewayne Geraghty Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:29:51 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? To: scratch65535@att.net Cc: freebsd-ports Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:23 -0000 Scratch65535, I think your best solution is to use latest and upgrade when you need to. Unlike Freddie's comment re only desktop users using latest. I ONLY upgrade my local svn of ports when there's a vulnerability or significant (for users) functional improvement of a port. It is a labour intensive exercise, monitoring CVE's for all externally-facing applications. Its a nice idea having a snapshot of ports, from the perspective of consistency, but that model doesnt suite our risk appetite on multiple levels; and in our view back-porting fixes to a quarterly snapshot - a good idea from a security perspective it is a really bad idea from a consistency/administrative/audit perspective. How the ports infrastructure can meet many conflicting objectives is something that we (the consumers of the ports service) must decide for our circumstance. The use-the-latest paradigm suits individuals that manage their individual machine, but when you manage multiple clients' servers, the requirements are different (try meeting a SAS70-II/SAE16-SOC2, ISO27001 SOA, NIST 800-53r5, etc) On a non-audit level, Microsoft might hold to monthly updates/fixes ("patch Tuesday") but bad guys don't. Regards, Dewayne.