I didn't say there were no other mutual stakeholders. I mentioned one whose security list I knew about already. It does raise interesting questions for when concerted action is desirable though.
I am not confusing security fixes with other fixes. However, slip-streaming some easy things is clearly an opportunity at LO at the moment. I can imagine some changes not even being announced as security fixes. I don't know about slip-streaming at IBM, RedOffice, Oracle, Microsoft, etc. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: rabas...@gmail.com [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 16:10 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Creation of ooo-security List On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Well, vulnerabilities are vulnerabilities and if there is an exposure in > current code or in documents produced in current code, isn't that a concern > for us now? Why would it not be? > I'm not saying it is not a concern. I'm saying if you think it is a concern, then get on with it and report the concern. > Also, I don't presume that everyone is downstream from us (as opposed to the > OpenOffice.org that once was). > > I think of LibreOffice as a mutual stakeholder because it seems they have a > security team too and like it or not, they are cranking out releases very > quickly and may be able to provide mitigations, hypothetically, months before > we ever get a release of ours out the door. > And IBM and RedOffice and Oracle doesn't have products in use based on this same code? And they don't have people who work with security? I question your definition of "mutual stakeholder", especially since our list of Committers has members from IBM, RedOffice and Oracle, but none from LibreOffice. And how often feature releases are "cranked out" is irrelevant to how quickly a vendor can release a security patch if needed. You are mixes two different kinds of releases. > Also, some security issues may require a jointly-agreed response so that we > attend to interoperability concerns, especially if mitigation involves > breaking changes or even introduction of allowed extensions (in the context > of the ODF specifications). Anything that fits into a discretionary area > requiring producer-consumer agreement to work needs a community to unfold it. > > I don't know about the details of having that work. I do know if I uncover a > problem, I am going to communicate it to every security-conscious entity I > can. > Hopefully this will include the Apache security list at some point. > To make this conversation concrete: I have security issues I want to raise, > which is what had me looking into this in the first place. I would like to > do this in a manner that is in keeping with concerns for dealing with > security matters privately to ensure that there is competent review and no > danger attached to premature disclosure. (I suspect not, because the > vulnerabilities I am aware of exist in plain sight, but I want the counsel of > someone having more security experience than I before saying, "Heck, I need > something for today's blog post, why not stir things up with this?") > The Apache process for handling this is documented and it explicitly covers the case of reports for a project that does not have a dedicated security list. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: rabas...@gmail.com [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 14:40 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Creation of ooo-security List > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: >> [I am reminded that the best way to talk to the PPMC is on ooo-dev and there >> is benefit in so doing. Here goes.] >> >> PROPOSAL >> >> ooo-security@incubator.a.o be set up as a private list and a selection of >> not more than 10 security-aware PPMC members be subscribed to it. We need >> to work out what the composition would be. The list will be automatically >> forward to security@a.o. I assume that there might be security-aware >> ooo-podling mentors and other ASF Members included in the small PPMC >> subscription. >> >> DETAILS >> >> General information about the Apache Security Team: >> <http://www.apache.org/security/> >> >> More details on the handling of security and vulnerabilities by committers >> and the role of the [P]PMC: >> <http://www.apache.org/security/committers.html> >> >> Note that creation of a security page on our web site is also part of this. >> That should happen near-immediately also. >> > > The website already has a "Security" link on the navigation panel, at > the bottom. This takes you to the main Apache security page where the > reporter is instructed on how to submit reports. According to that > page, security reports are routed to the PMC in case we do not have a > dedicated security list. So I don't see the urgency on creating a new > list or a new web page, especially since we don't even have code in > the repository, let alone a release, and since there already is a > security list and contact address at OOo. I think that the existing > procedures, in place at Apache, are adequate if someone wanted to > report a problem > > The idea of having the discussion in private, on the PMC private list > or on a private security list, is a good idea, so that any > vulnerability reported would not be immediately exploited by script > kiddies. Or at least the chances of that would be diminished. But I > don't think that any of the PPMC members are malicious hackers likely > to abuse any security sensitive information shared on the PPMC list. > Of course, only a subset of the members have security expertise. > > >> BACKGROUND >> >> I have been nosing around in document-related security areas and that has >> led me to inquire what the arrangements need to be for discussing security >> issues, identified vulnerabilities, proposed mitigations, etc. >> >> I've learned that the Apache approach is for each PMC taking the lead in >> handling security matters related to its releases. To maintain the security >> of security matters, the practice is to have a private list (for us, >> ooo-security) with not more than ten security-aware subscribers. >> >> Since we may have "common-mode" issues with respect to the use of our common >> code base and implementation behaviors, it may be necessary to coordinate >> with other teams, including the LibreOffice security team, in our case. >> We'll have to work that out on an individual-case basis, I suspect. I don't >> know if we have any PPMC members who are also on that team, and I don't know >> what the structure was for OpenOffice.org and who may have been involved. >> > > I'd object to us officially sharing advance security-related > information with some downstream consumers of OOo while not doing the > same with others. > >> - Dennis >> >> > >
