On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Matthew Green <[email protected]> wrote: > So: > > 1. What is the process by which you get OpenSSL contributors to notice a > serious issue and apply a patch?
I wouldn't know, I haven't tried :-) In my case, just ask (me, that is, not some mailing list). If the issue is serious, I will likely apply the patch. > 2. What are the criteria for applying a patch? Is it just 'whatever interests > the devs'? It seems that publishing an exploit works, but is that necessary? I think it can be taken as read that the devs are interested in the security and stability of OpenSSL. > 3. It's 2012 -- why the **** is OpenSSL running its own ticket tracker and > source control servers??? (RT is a disaster.) Damn good question. Probably because we don't have a volunteer to move everything somewhere else and keep it running. > 4. What does it take to become an OpenSSL volunteer? :-) Like most (good) open source projects: sustained contribution. > > Matt > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, John Case <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [SNIP] >>>> >>>> Apparently you think the best way to get a secure platform is to apply >>>> pressure through pointless security standards. I'd suggest your >>>> efforts might be better spent supplying patches instead. Or, y'know, >>>> talking to the authors of the s/w in question. You never know, they >>>> might care. >>> Ah, OK. My bad. >>> >>> I've tried supplying patches and filing bug report/enhancement requests. >>> >>> Here was a gentle patch for spelling corrections in a README - >>> rejected. >>> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2401. >> >> AFAICS that is not rejected, it is ignored. There's a difference. >> >> Also, your patch appears to be reversed. Or your spelling is terrible :-) >> >>> Here was a patch for Xcode awareness - rejected (is it fair to say >>> when its sites for years without acknowledgement?). >>> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2402. >> >> Also not rejected. >> >> Now, I agree that having patches ignored isn't so great either, but >> the problem is: >> >> * RT doesn't actually work, the guy who allegedly maintains our >> infrastructure doesn't, and the team can't agree what to do about it >> (not that its tried very hard). >> >> * OpenSSL is mostly maintained by volunteers, who may not have felt >> particularly inspired by your patches, or may just have missed them. >> >> * When people are paid, they're generally paid to do specific things, >> not to trawl through RT (if they even could) looking for patches to >> adopt. I'm sure someone could pay for that if they want to, though. >> >> * CVS is a shit tool, too, making it hard to deal with patches - we've >> even agreed as a team to move off it, but see above about >> infrastructure :-) >> >>> I can't locate a bug report on the use of the uninitialized data. >>> Perhaps I had the discussion on the developer's mailing list (I know >>> I'm not imagining it, so my apologies). >>> >>> I am also aware that patches existed for some time for CCM mode, GCM >>> mode, and SRP. In the case of GCM, IBM supplied the patches 5 or 10 >>> years earlier. None were acted upon. >> >> It always amuses me when bigcorp pays to have a patch made, but >> somehow manages to fail to understand that the guy applying the patch >> has to eat, too. Plus, ISTR the IP situation is none too clear on all >> of these. >> >> This reminds me of the first attempt to FIPSify OpenSSL, where there >> was zero budget for the developer - just money for test labs and the >> like ("what do you mean you want money to work on it? I thought it was >> free software!"). >> >>> The project does not appear to want outside help. If I am drawing the >>> wrong conclusion, please forgive me. >> >> I'll grant you that your very small patches could be considered help, >> and it is a little unfortunate they they were ignored, but like I say, >> RT is a shit tool, at least as implemented at OpenSSL, as is CVS (I >> notice you didn't supply the needed 4 patches, just a single one) and >> no-one's paying anyone to pick patches up from it, particularly. >> >> The rest of your "help" appears to be specifying flags you'd like to >> be used and expecting us to do the work for you. Which I actually >> might, I find that kind of thing therapeutic, but you get my point. >> >> I think the project would welcome help - but it needs to be useful help :-) >> _______________________________________________ >> cryptography mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
