On 07/05/2015 08:40 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bardur Arantsson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> How often have security issues with GHC (or the base libraries) itself >> been a problem? (In practice, I mean.) >> > > Not that often, but consider one real example: aeson was found to have a > DDoS bug which was fixed by making it depend on a package which IIRC needed > a newer base, so the fix couldn't be backported to versions of aeson > compatible with older base. The necessary fix for those would have been > substantially more complicated. > > (There are other examples, but the primary one that actually involves > something shipped with ghc is never going to be fixed until it destroys > someone's system, and I bet even then we'll get another load of HOMG MUST > NEVER CHANGE API ONLY DOCUMENT AS BAD from the maintainer. I'm still > waiting for one of the Linux distributions to notice and CVE it.) >
Oh, yeah, that's a valid point... but is this something that should drive design? Further, I don't think the aeson DDoS problem was predicated on an old/obsolete "base" library? Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I'm sure y'all will be happy to point out where and why. :) Regards, _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
