Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:59 AM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 7:45 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:37 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:53 PM David Cantrell
> > > <david.l.cantrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Similarly, a package with a medium CVE NEW bugzilla would be orphaned after 4
> > > > > reminders (after 9-12 weeks), retired at a point if still not CLOSED after 4 months.
> > > > >
> > > > > With low severity, that is 6 reminders (after 15-18 weeks), retired at a point
> > > > > if still not CLOSED after 6 months (similarly to the current policy).
> > > >
> > > > Where do get bug severity information?
> > >
> > > Fedora Workstation WG has an issue "Reconsider updates policy" that
> > > relates to this question.
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/107
> > >
> > > If there are any security updates, GNOME Software pops up a
> > > notification to install them. This thwarts attempts to avoid nagging
> > > the user, because so many updates contain some sort of security
> > > mitigation. One proposal is to not treat security updates as special,
> > > and still wait until a week has passed for the update.
> > >
> > > But the contra argument is, well what if there is an urgent security fix?
> > >
> > > The repo metadata, I guess, needs some way of distinguishing urgent vs
> > > non-urgent security updates, so that GNOME Software knows whether to
> > > notify the user accordingly. But is there a reliable way of
> > > distinguishing between urgent and non-urgent security updates? I'd
> > > informally suggest "urgent" is something that should be applied today
> > > or tomorrow. Anything else can wait a week or two.
> > >
>
> (snip)
>
> > The repo metadata has the property, so packagers just have to set it
> > in Bodhi when submitting updates. It defaults to unspecified.
>
> It *does* default to unspecified, yes. However, when submitting an
> update of type "security", bodhi won't let you even submit the update
> unless you set the severity to something other than "unspecified".


Is there a distribution wide definition for these four severities?
Ideally, urgent should be a high bar, and I wonder if it's possible
many updates tagged as urgent are actually high severity?
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/blob/develop/bodhi/client/bindings.py#L262




-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux