The CVE doesn’t seem that serious, since we don’y use either Java or GWT serialization.
I hope and believe that people can use any recent version of Guava with Avatica and Calcite, including 24.1.1. If not we should fix it urgently. I’m not sure we need to disable it working with older versions. Julian > On Oct 12, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Guava [11,24.1.1) is marked as being vulnerable via > https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-10237 > > Avatica currently depends on Guava 14.x and Calcite on 19.0. I'd like to > start a discussion about how we ensure "safe" hygiene in our dependencies > while still ensuring compatibility downstream. > > I can see a couple of paths forward which are all related to > relocating+bundling Guava in a non-standard location. > > 1. If we have Guava classes in the "user-facing API" for the projects, we > should create a new module which relocates our version of Guava in a standard > place for downstream projects to know about. This is required for developers > to sanely use their IDEs (e.g. if we shade guava-$x, users cannot depend on > guava-$x in their IDE as those classes don't actually exist). This is the > "Maven way" to work around this problem. > 2. If we only use Guava "internally", we can just shade Guava like normal. > > I think we would require #1, but I haven't done any scan over the codebase > recently. Given #1, we also should think about: > > 1a. Only Avatica has this special artifact for guava (or really, thirdparty > dependencies)? > 1b. Avatica and Calcite each have the special artifact for themselves. > > If we can get away with 1a, great. Otherwise, 1b gives us lots of > flexibility. I think this positions us in a place where we don't force > downstream projects to move to a specific version of Guava (if they have > analyzed their usage to know they are not vulnerable to some security issue). > > - Josh
