Re: FOSSA - Now we need feedback by the real experts

[Matthias Kirschner]

Thank you all for the feedback until now. The people in the commission
are on vacation until mid August, afterwards I will send them summaries
so they can improve the pilot project further. Our goal would be that
they learn from the pilot project and continue with a new budget
aftwarwards.

Meanwhile there are more deliverables available online: 
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eu-fossa/og_page/project-deliveries

I thought it might be best if I share the notes here, so if anyone also
wants to have a look at them, you do not have to start at zero.

I would be especially interested in your feedback about the security
tools (marked with TODO below).


# Deliverable 10: List of Tools and Methods for Communicating the Results of 
Code Reviews

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ckeditor_files/files/DLV%20WP2%20-10%20-%20Tools%20and%20methods%20for%20communicating%20results%20of%20code%20reviews_published.odt

My question when reading this are:

* How do you make sure Free Software developers actually read the results of
  the code audits? 
* How are the Free Software communities informed?
* How do you restrict access, if you e.g. publish it on their public mailing
  list? Is there first a step to identify security people, or trusted people in
  Free Software projects?

# Deliverable 9: List of Requirements for Code Reviews

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ckeditor_files/files/DLV%20WP2%20-%209%20-%20List%20of%20requirements%20for%20code%20reviews_published.odt

Page 42: Type of License: FOSS/OSS/Commercial does not make any sense. Either
it is Free Software/Open Source, or not. It can be commercial and Free
Software/Open Source. Suggestion to changed it to:

* 3 for Free Software/Open Source with commercial support
* 0 for proprietary 

For "Support available" it might make sense to differ if a company is available
to give support, or if you have to go into a form to ask people.

* 3 - Yes, commercial and non-commercial
* 2 - Yes, commerical
* 1 - Yes, non-commercial
* 0 - No

Again here it looks as if they are mainly concentrating on web tools. E.g.
"Can review Java and/or PHP" how does that relate to code reviews in general? Or

  Any SQL sentences used must be analysed in order to ensure that there are no
  vulnerabilities related to SQL Injections

What if SQL is not used in the software?

TODO: "1.1.1. Results of the Pre-selection" (p60 following). SonarQube has the
highest rank but the Conclusion is in the end:

1. For Java projects: FindBugs
2. For PHP projects: RIPS
3. For Java and PHP: VCG
4. For Java and PHP: YASCA

  All the tools within the scope of this study are more or less
  efficient. SonarQube has a lot of potential as well, since its
  plugins are constantly being improved. PMD does not seem to be very
  valuable for secure code reviews, however it is a great tool for
  quality code review.

How do people see that?


# Deliverable 11: Design of the Method for Performing the Code Reviews for the 
European Institutions

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ckeditor_files/files/DLV%20WP2-11%20Design%20of%20the%20Method%20for%20Performing%20the%20Code%20Reviews%20for%20the%20European%20Institutions_published.odt

Not sure I understand what that deliverable is supposed to be about.
Maybe someone else understands that.

Regards,
Matthias

-- 
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030  | (fsfe.org/donate)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner)  -  Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FOSSA - Now we need feedback by the real experts

[Stefan Umit Uygur]

I wasn't aware myself about this initiative at all to be honest. Dealing
with bureaucrats is not an easy think. I read a bit the documents and the
deliverable and I see this as an opportunity if I may.

A part from the report of deliverable, which is an obvious thing that they
have no knowledge about free software or they maybe don't want to know, we
have also, as community, the lack of supporting or providing proof of how
reliable and secure is free software. those who are using free software
already knows that it is safer than any other proprietary software, the
massive usage by everyone (both companies and private entities) gives an
answer.

But still, we as free software community are not well organized to this end.

So the opportunity I am referring to is to take this idea and create an
entity that audits free software in general and releases the reports. in
the end, the major tools used by everyone are not that many which makes
things easier for the auditing entity.

the question is I am not really sure if this either to be FSFE or a
separate organisation, I'd rather say FSFE which will bring enormous
advantages to free software world and automatically to FSFE.

Not sure if i explained myself but i'd opt for the creation of such entity
as I feel confident it have a massive success for free software. i feel
also confident as I am part of a free software community where we develop a
linux penetration testing distro. making a free software security community
part of this auditing entity wouldn't be that difficult. But it is
difficult to put together all other security teams (i.e. debian, fedora,
centos, redhat, ubuntu, etc.).

Mine is just an idea that i throw just like that and i think it is about
long term solutuion for free software auditing problem and not only when
someone comes and knock the door.  I'd love to hear other people's opinions.

Stefan

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Nico Rikken  wrote:

> Just wanted to give a shout out for this important topic. I recognize
> the concerns addressed in the commentaries, and can certainly agree
> with them.
>
> I find it hard to formulate concrete missteps based on the writups,
> even though the general spirit of the recommendations provided
> certainly smells. The License table was a good laugh.
> I afterwards briefly looked over the WP1-04 and it's like a different
> world. Apparently nobody does code reviews, and Debian has no security
> team. Also there are way to many N/A's.
> Dispite some discussion on the formal details of the best-practice
> definitions, the vibe I get is that Open Source Software should not be
> trusted. You know, important people have been saying that for years,
> and with this document as proof, perhaps FOSS is indeed shit, and we
> should stop using it altogether. ;)
>
> Can we maybe croudsource some of the checkmarks like tools and
> practices? Perhaps we can show what FOSS is really all about.
>
> I'll probably take a closer look in the coming days. For now I would
> like to encourage anyone on this list to get outraged on the results so
> far.
>
> Thanks Matthias, Mirko, and all others involved.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nico
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
>
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FOSSA - Now we need feedback by the real experts

[Matthias Kirschner]

* Matthias Kirschner  [2016-07-11 10:01:15 +0200]:

> Here the blog post with more background information about it:
> http://k7r.eu/fossa-now-we-need-feedback-by-the-real-experts/
> 
> As written in the post: As you are the real experts, now we need your
> feedback. What do you think about the deliverables themselves and what
> about our comments so far? I am especially interested if you benefit
> from the recommendations
> .

Mirko Böhm, who was also involved in the project from the beginning,
wrote down his comments on the deliverables and encourages you to give
feedback, too. 

https://creative-destruction.me/2016/07/11/eu-fossa-needs-your-help-a-free-software-community-call-to-action/

Regards,
Matthias

-- 
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030  | (fsfe.org/donate)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner)  -  Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion