Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:26:56 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/portaudit-db/database portaudit.txt portaudit.xlist portaudit.xml Message-ID: <0569BE5A-F07B-11D8-924A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040817175847.GC43426@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 ...
>
> In the mean time, could the date of entry be used? And perhaps a
> comment could be a workaround for now, something like
>
> <discovered>2004-08-17</discovered> <!-- XXX please correct --->
>
> Ugly, I know, but the current format wasn't made for
> works-in-progress. Maybe we can make some options for that...
epoch 0? 1970-01-01? Or the date vuxml was announced? This would be
easier to find than XXX, especially in a rendered version. Or just leave
the entry empty.
Any constant will do, it could be easily rendered to `unknown'. I find a
non-constant value (date of entry) a bad choice it is more difficult to
test against (and could be correct).
>>> In place of arguing, start forging some code to check the base
>>> system against the security listings in vuln.xml.
>>
>> portaudit could easily do that. The only thing useful here would be to
>> use __FreeBSD_versions, so we can check -STABLE and -CURRENT too. Or
>> can
>> I map the version numbers somehow? I added __FreeBSD_versions in the
>> last entry (multiple CVS vulnerabilities), but they are commented out
>> since I don't know what the right syntax is.
>
> By way of example, I've been using FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE-p1 == 4.7_1. I'm
> not entirely satisfied and I am open to suggestions. This part has been
> ill-specified. :-(
Ehm, __FreeBSD_version? What's bad with that? Documented in the Porters
Handbook, and to find out.
-Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0569BE5A-F07B-11D8-924A-00039312D914>