There is no question of which build as there is only one build. Once
somebody puts an effort to create nightly build we can discuss moving
the check from the current build to the nightly build, but then the
question will be what do we do with PR that introduces new dependencies
with CVE? Remember that goal of the PR is to prevent dependencies with
severe CVE being introduced into the project and also to prevent
technical debt at the time of a release.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 11/2/17 14:38, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory release
step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these, detection
of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those will
work even if there are no PRs.
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a “whitelisting”
configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review
process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a
resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt slipping
without anyones notice. Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I
believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and would
need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE listings
which the spark community has taken care of as the releases progressed.
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> .
Regards,
Ananth
On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <san...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
getting
contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can
have
the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
Sanjay
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will
be
interested fixing the issues.
Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
pre-existing,
we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the
next
release?
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com
wrote:
I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
merging
the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or
not.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote:
On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
prevent
new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
needed.
After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
the
check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check
needs
to
be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right
place
already, IMO.
Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
when
such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
removing/fixing those dependencies.
Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
additional
checks that verify the PR better.
Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
was
introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
but
would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
notifies
the
interested parties.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
active
PRs
on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
point.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
existing
functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
control
and do
not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
infrastructure
team
may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
The
same
applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
vulnerabilities.
Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
proposal.
While
they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
changes
maintain
compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the
same.
In
this
case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
nothing
to
do
with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
is
bringing
in the CVE yes do fail it.
There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
another
on
Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
them
was
caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
is
different.
A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
newly
introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
don't
think
it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
important
to
eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
dependency
issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
employer
punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
vendor
priority,
there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community
does
not
have a
deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
there
is a
problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as
a
PMC
suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
as a
"stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
contributor,
it is
a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
"stick"
for
an
individual contributor.
The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
make
people
address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
contributing
to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
will
be
or
what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some
other
issue.
In
some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
to
build
failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise.
I
don't
think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
matching
CVE
is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
merging a
PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
given
a
thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
notify
about
CVEs.
As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
keeping
PRs
open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
failed
build
is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
contributor.
I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
regular
development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
offline.
Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
PRs
and
add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
reviewed
and accepted). The regular development will continue with the
only
exception that the next commit to be merged must address the
build
issue
(whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
effort
in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
only
checks
for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
public?
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org
wrote:
On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
existing
dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
better
to
know
about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
candidate?
In
case
it
is
reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
for
the
community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
(as a
PMC
member
you are responsible for preventing release with severe
security
issue
going
out). If it is reported once the information becomes
available,
there
is
more time to research and either upgrade the dependency
with
newly
found
CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
always
know
about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
fail
builds to
do
that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
no
set
time
for
a release so having less time during release for addressing
relevant
CVEs
does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
from
looking
at
these reports and taking action earlier.
I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
but
I
think
it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
severe
vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
existing
dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build?
Why
require
manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
does
not
affect
builds done by individual contributors?
While there is no set time for a release, there is no set
time
for a
PR
merge as well.
Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
does
not
mean
nobody if CI build fails.
I still do not understand why you value an individual
contributor
and
PR
over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
severe
security
vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
project,
including
all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in
a
pending
(not
merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before
as
well. A
project cannot grow without contributions and without
policies
that
create
a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
the
need
to
put
unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
not
the
cause
of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
going
to
get
blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
have
the
bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It
is
also
inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
issues
are
resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
as a
build
failure.
While project can't grow without individual contributions,
project
is a
result of a large number of contributions from a number of
contributors.
Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will
not
provide
any
fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
It
becomes a
shared responsibility of all currently active community
members
and
those
who submit PR are part of the community and share that
responsibility,
are
not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
community,
why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved
or
better
take
an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
explanation
that I
see
is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
contributions,
why
to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
test?
Should
it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests
as
well?
What
if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
similar
to
what
happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
on a
committer
or a release manager to run unit tests? If CI build fails
for
whatever
reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR
as
well,
that
they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
reasons
that
will cause a problem with a PR?
I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
introduce,
don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall
in
the
same
bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
is
no
reason
to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
separtely
and
in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
job
on
a
build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
discovered
and
sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could
even
reduce
the
CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
(carrot
and
stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org
wrote:
There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
discussed
on
a
case
by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a
fix
is
available.
For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
for
the
reported
version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
the
upgrade
to
a
supported version is already overdue.
I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
of
what
and
when
to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
the
CVE
may
not
apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may
be
beneficial
upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not
be
the
bandwidth
in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
newer
version
especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
happened
before
as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
experiencing
this situation before.
I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
don't
expect
anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
fails,
committers
and reviewers look into the details.
We can add a mandatory step during release that we need
to
assess
CVEs
matching this criteria before proceeding with the
release.
This
could
end
up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
cases
it
may
not
be
needed. This assessment can also happen more often in
adhoc
fashion
offline
before release based upon interest from community. I am
also
open
to
making
it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
suggesting,
if
we
see
sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
experience
this
is
not
there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
new
dependency
with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
existing
dependency.
In
both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
issue
and
hence
we
should avoid penalizing them or block them.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
there
is a
cve
matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
affect
us
because
let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
*and*
there
isn't a
fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
significant
effort
(for example if we need to move to a new major version
of
the
dependency
or
something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
like
we
did
for
checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead
of
failing
the
builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
investigate
these
reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
introduces
new
cves
by
virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
existing
version,
that
would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
there
a
way
to
distinguish that?
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
newly
introduced
dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
the
build
will
fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
details,
it
will
be
necessary to run dependency check manually.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
there
was
no
final
agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
disclosing
the
actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
for
every
PR?
That
would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
requires
manual
steps,
for
example as part of a release build, that would be
fine.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
Please see https://github.com/apache/
apex-core/pull/585
and
APEXCORE-790.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
Do you expect anything else from the community to
recognize
a
contribution other than committing it to the code
line?
Once
there
is
a
steady flow of quality contributions, the
community/PMC
will
recognize
a
contributor by making that contributor a committer.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important
as
security
so
I
don't
think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But
I
get
your
drift.
By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
incentive
(although a
gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
of
what a
community
can do to recognize such contribution.
Sanjay
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org>
wrote:
I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
cost
definition.
For
me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
severe
security
issue
is huge for the community and is possibly small
(except
for
a
security
issues) for a vendor.
By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
community
members,
users
and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
compensate
for
the
cost
:). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build
is
sufficiently
incentive for a contributor to look into why it
fails
and
fixing
it.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
to
generalize.
But
an
obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
In any case we should come up with a creative way
to
"incentivize"
members
to do these tasks.
