On 2019-02-09 11:39:18, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > On 2019-02-07 at 11:44:45 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Recently, python-gnupg was triaged for maintenance in Debian LTS, which >> brought my attention to this little wrapper around GnuPG that I'm >> somewhat familiar with. >> >> Debian is marked as "vulnerable" for CVE-2019-6690 in Jessie and Stretch >> right now, with buster and sid marked as fixed, as you can see here: >> >> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/python-gnupg > > sorry, my fault for missing the CVE when uploading the new upstream > version; I will prepare the fix for stable(-security) ASAP.
No problem! :) > I don't care enough about LTS to learn its upload procedures, but if > somebody is interested in doing it I can backport the patch and push it > to git, for them to upload. I'm sure people in the LTS team (including myself) would be happy to carry that torch any way you prefer. We can perform as much or as little as you want in the process. >> I'm concerned about the security of this project in general. Even though >> that specific instance might be fixed, there are many more bad security >> practices used in this project. A fork was created by Isis Agora >> Lovecruft to fix those issues: >> >> https://github.com/isislovecruft/python-gnupg/ > > AFAIK that fork is dead upstream, and it's not compatible with Vinay > Sajip's version, so it can't be used to satisfy the dependency in other > packages Maybe so, but the security concerns raised are serious and should be addressed. I'm surprised to hear it's not backwards-compatible, however... That is certainly a concern if we'd want to switch upstreams, but that's not exactly what I was proposing... Isis renamed their package to "pretty bad protocol" anyways, which makes it clear it's not designed to be a drop-in replacement. >> [...] >> I suspect many such issues could be identified formally in the >> python-gnupg package. > > My experience with upstream is that they are quite good at reacting to > issues that are raised on their bugtracker (and I'm happy to forward > them there from the debian BTS). > > On the other hand, they don't maintain a LTS version, so the fix will > happen in the latest release, and while I'm confident that many patches > will be backportable there is no guarantee that *all* of them would be, > especially to the version in oldstable. I am especially concerned about backporting fixes Isis identified. Those are far-ranging vulnerabilities that require massive code refactoring. I doubt those would be meaningfully backportable. >> But maybe, instead, we should just mark it as unsupported in >> debian-security-support and move on. There are few packages depending on >> it, in jessie: >> [...] >> in buster: >> [...] > > I think this list is missing something, maybe the reverse dependencies > of python3-gnupg: I know that gajim-pgp depends on it (and is in turn > recommended by gajim) at least in buster; earlier versions used an old > embedded copy of the same library, so this isn't really a "new" > dependency. I guess that's why I missed it in jessie - there are no rdeps for the py3 version in jessie... I'm not sure what to do next here. I just felt it was important to outline possibly fundamental problems with this package that are not currently mapped in the CVE process. Maybe that shouldn't lead to any action on our part, but I wanted people here to be aware of those concerns. A. -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1755