security [ARCHIVED]

security@lists.fedoraproject.org

840 discussions

Summary of FC5 vulnerabilities
by Mark Cox 20 Mar '06

20 Mar '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Quick Summary: For 20030101-20060320 there are a potential 1361 CVE named vulnerabilities that could have affected FC5 packages. 90% of those are fixed because FC5 includes an upstream version that includes a fix, 1% are still outstanding, and 9% are fixed with a backported patch. Many of the outstanding and backported entries are for issues still not dealt with upstream. For comparison FC4 had 88% by version, 1% outstanding, 11% backported. Method: Near the release time of each new distribution the Red Hat security team go through the packages to ensure that everything is up to date with security patches. Full details of the method can be found http://people.redhat.com/mjc/20050505-fc4 A full table of CVE name, the reason why FC5 isn't vulnerable and optional comments showing the package name, version it was fixed in, or method used to verify the details is available: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/fedora-security/audit/fc5?root=fedora This file will be kept up to date through the life of FC5 to track publically known vulnerabilities and how they affect FC5. Corrections, comments to secalert(a)redhat.com. Thanks, Mark - -- Mark J Cox / Red Hat Security Response Team -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRB57f+6tTP1JpWPZAQIRAgQApmCQEUeH4vbMBJABLsFPXmyvkhlbfN+X mRMcFOHjIc/bekCGb864f64rDxbs+piLE7uXZak4zio7xAKRdWT5z28X2TgprcS8 VT+XBIzix0+vGni8JzDKpEZEq6FTE6zPG22gDfxGAwt9K0qxHGxb1JkY/Syh7wjI V7vi8XFlaag= =dnuD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

1 0

This list mentioned on main Fedora page?
by David Eisenstein 20 Mar '06

20 Mar '06

Hi, Was just looking at http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/communicate/, and noticed that this list is not yet mentioned there. Should it be? Warm regards, David Eisenstein

2 1

Re: Possibility to send FE security announcements to the FC announcement list?
by Bill Nottingham 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl) said: > I'm one of the people who is trying to get FE security organised, see: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-security-list/2006-March/msg00011.ht… > > One of the questions we are trying to answer is where to send FE > security announcements. We would like to send these to the list (and in > the same format) where FC security announcements get send. Josh Bressers > told me you own that list and that I should ask you, so here we are. I don't have a conceptual problem with it. You'd probably want to also start using Luke's code for XML advisory info in the repodata, since we're going to roll that out for Core at some point in the future. Bill

3 3

fedora-security/audit
by Hans de Goede 09 Mar '06

09 Mar '06

Hi, I just saw commit messages on the cvs-list for fedora-security/audit. Whats is this file (I know the answer seems obvious). What is its purpose how up to date is it. Is someone putting the found vulnerabilities in bugzilla? I think that this file is _great_, yet notting seems to be done with it? Regards, Hans

2 1

Getting FE security (team/sig) moving / on the road
by Hans de Goede 06 Mar '06

06 Mar '06

Hi all, I just subsribed to this list, but I know from the archive that this has already been somewhat discussed on the list, still for completness first a short intro. For people outside the loop: We a small group of FE contributers have been discussing creating / instantitiating a FE security sig / team. What we have sofar can be found on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy The last 2 weeks it has been rather quiet in our little group I would like to get the discussion on FE-security kickstarted again, hence this mail. To the people in the CC, afaik you're not subscribed yet, but you were involved in the FE security discussion sofar. We initially commited to taking this discussion public monday a week ago, well clearly we didn't. So I'm taking it public through this list now and I would like todo the rest if this discussion on this list, please subscribe. To the people on the list please use reply to all so that those in the CC stay involved in this thread. After this intro hopefully everybody knows what I'm talking about / is up2date, so now lets look forward. My proposal to get an Fedora Extra Security Team on the road is as follows: Fesco will discuss: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy Coming Thursday, hopefully with some improvements but if nescesarry as is. I know that gives us just a few days to discuss any improvements, but things have already been widely discussed and after that we've all been quiet for a while. So I think its about time to take this to the next level. All in favor of getting this on the FESco speaking schedule soon say I :) I ofcourse vote for my own proposal. So we need to get: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy in tip-top shape before thursday. So what suggestions have come up sofar: --- Josh bressers wrote: "I've looked that document over in the past. I admit the times at the end chart scare me. That's a fairly complicated chart. Within Red Hat there was discussion about how to best classify security issues, this is what we came up with: http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/ When one has to classify security threats, less is more. I would suggest something more along these lines: Critical: Don't bother waiting for the maintainer, do whatever it takes to fix it. Important: A few days. Moderate: A few weeks. Low: A few months." I agree that its a good idea to use the RedHat security team classifications. Anyone feel like updating the wiki (I'm low on time)? About the suggested response time I join sides with Jason that their should be a response time for Critical bugs, not automatic take-over by the FE security team. Also I think the times should be shorter then suggested by Josh, we're talking about ping times here, not time till fix. Maybe we need another word here. The biggest problem sofar is people who have been dead quiet in bugzilla. So if I say the security team takes over if their is no response within a week, I mean no response _at all_ if the maintainer says yip that looks like a problem I'll look into it, then he has responded and the response timer gets reset. so in this case as long as a maintainer makes an entry about his progress every week all is ok and the FE security team does not step in. The team could ofcourse offer help suggest fixes, but we won't step in and push a fix, that is left to the maintainer. --- In general one of things which needs updating in our proposal the most is that it should be made very clear that the FE security team is a fallback and a fallback only. Normally the maintainers are 100% responsible for the security updates for their own packages (for as far as a volunteer can be responsible, the should feel 100% responsible.) Can a native English speaker put something like this in their in very strong yet friendly words? --- Besides the response time and the making very clear that security is the maintainers responsibility not the security teams we still need to work out the Open issues list. As I've suggested before: -I would like to suggest to send announcement to the list (and in the same format) where FC security announcements get send, Josh is this possible, can we get direct access, or maybe through you/ the whole RH-security team? -The FE security team needs a way to get involved in bugs / fixes where all the info is under embargo. Again Josh, can you/ the whole RH-security team play a role here? We ofcourse only need to be in the loop if a package within FE has a hole. -I've used the word FE security team instead of SIG above because I think to the outside team sounds a lot better (professional) then SIG, and this well help in being taking serious by the outside world (for embargos for example) this has 2 disadvantages however: *maintainers could get the idea that the team is responsible for the security fixes, which its not they (the maintainers) are *confusion with the redhat security team So I'm not sure which name is better team or sig. Thanks for your time reading this and please give your much valued opinion. Regards, Hans

5 4

Secunia pages -- publishing wrong and misleading information about security status of Fedora distros?? RE: [Fedora Project Wiki] Update of "Security" by JoshBressers (fwd)
by David Eisenstein 04 Mar '06

04 Mar '06

Hi, Was noticing one of Josh Bresser's edits to wiki/Security today... (see the forward below). If Secunia's information is incorrect and misleading, misrepresenting the true security status of Fedora distributions, oughtn't we get in touch with Secunia to help coordinate updating their information to make it correct and informative? They claim to welcome feedback: "If you have new information regarding a Secunia advisory or a product in our database, please send it to us using either our web form or email us at vuln(a)secunia.com. "Ideas, suggestions, and other feedback is most welcome." It seems that Secunia may be doing us a service, putting a lot of work into informing the public of details about the security status of various Linux distros including Fedora -- work we may not have time to do and so are not doing at the moment. Perhaps we can support their work rather than just putting our heads in the sand and pretending it's not there misrepresenting the security status? (a little later) Okay, now I've actually *looked* at Secunia's pages... Hrm. It looks like Secunia only talks about issues that have releases published, and then only from the fedora-announce-list. They have nothing in their pages about vulnerabilities fixed by Fedora Legacy. (For example, see <http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=2568> for FC1, which Fedora Legacy continues to maintain.) And, since it appears they're only reporting from announcements of fixed packages, of course their little pie charts would show 100% fixed. (For example, see <http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=5251> for Fedora Core 4.) It looks like they're doing no original research at all (like looking at CVE's from cve.mitre.org) to see if distros have any unpatched vulnerabilities ... Does Secunia have folks that can be worked with so their Fedora pages can become reliable enough so we *can* have them linked to as a third-party site in our wiki?? And further, do any of us who work with security issues have *time* to invest in working with them to bring them in line with reality, assuming they're open to suggestions? Regards, David Eisenstein ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: fedorawiki-noreply(a)fedoraproject.org To: fedorawiki-noreply(a)fedoraproject.org Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:32:50 -0000 Subject: [Fedora Project Wiki] Update of "Security" by JoshBressers Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Fedora Project Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by JoshBressers: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security The comment on the change is: The secunia pages are very wrong and misleading. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@ -38, +38 @@ * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Presentations - == Third-Party Information == - - Secunia: - * [http://secunia.com/product/5251/ Secunia's Vulnerability Report for Fedora Core 4] - * [http://secunia.com/product/4222/ Secunia's Vulnerability Report for Fedora Core 3] - * [http://secunia.com/product/3489/ Secunia's Vulnerability Report for Fedora Core 2] - * [http://secunia.com/product/2568/ Secunia's Vulnerability Report for Fedora Core 1] - * [http://secunia.com/vendor/3/ Secunia's Red Hat vendor page] - ---- CategoryDocumentation CategorySecurity

2 1

Hi and wiki
by David Eisenstein 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Just coming in to say hi. Also wanted to mention that I placed an initial reference to this new list here: <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security> Josh, or anyone, if you feel you can put it better, please, be my guest and change it to better reflect reality. :-) Warm regards, David Eisenstein

1 0

Welcome
by Dennis Gilmore 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

So where do we start? I guess a good point is to refer everyone to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy and get some discussion going on that -- Regards Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian

4 5

Announcing fedora-security-list
by Josh Bressers 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

There has been a fair amount of talk regarding how to handle security updates in Fedora Extras. Current handling of these updates is up to the package maintainer. The fedora-security-list has been created for just such discussions, with the hope of the community to devise a solution to deal with Extras security issues. The scope of this list is not limited to Extras security, but rather a list with a focus on security issues in Fedora along with how the various security groups can work together. You can subscribe to the list here: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-security-list Thanks, Josh -- Josh Bressers // Red Hat Security Response Team

1 0

Test message
by Josh Bressers 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

test

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

security [ARCHIVED]