Re: OFBiz releases EOL (End Of Life) announcement [was Re: [ofbiz-site] branch master updated: More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)]

2022-01-05 Thread Jacques Le Roux 

Hi Michael,

That sounds interesting, I propose to create a Jira of maybe even a wiki page 
for that, maybe a new thread to discuss?

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 17:58, Michael Brohl a écrit :

+1

with a few additions: I think that the project should have a planned roadmap with more or less fixed release dates/cycles and a clear pre-planned 
EOL plan.


We should also specify what EOL means for us and if there is a step between. I think of making bugfixes/backports during main support and only doing 
security fixes in a phase after that. EOL would then mean ultimately no fixes at all.


For new release branches, we should als TRY to plan which features, big changes or deprecations we want to put in and work towards those goals 
(thinking about major framework changes etc. as we started to discuss recently).


We should also think about another release number scheme. The inclusion of the year/month the branch was created makes the first stable release look 
outdated as we normally have a stabilization time of 2-3 years (which we also could change). Maybe that's a discussion for past-22.x


Thanks,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 04.01.22 um 16:04 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

Hi All,

I'd like to discuss about OFBiz releases EOL (End Of Life) announcement.

For instance R17.12 is EOL with 17.12.08. I suggest to make it clear on site (if that's not already enough, eg*), to send an email to user ML and 
maybe talk about it in social-media and the blog.


Maybe we could also have a special site page for EOL dates and version of our 
releases? And some words in https://ofbiz.apache.org/security.html...

* https://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-17.12.08.html (maybe the de facto 
standard term EOL (End Of Life) is missing?)

Opinions?

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 11:52, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

I agree Jacopo,

Will you handle it?

I made those tiny changes after an answer Mark J. Cox made to Mark Thomas in a 
discussion I read on security-disc...@community.apache.org :

   MT:  <>

   MC: <>

There are at least 340+ TLPs*. So I guess it becomes worrying for the ASF.

I don't think we are concerned by those worries. So was just a small effort in 
this direction.
I think though that we should discuss about how to handle EOL announcements.

* 
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-software-foundation-security-report1

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 10:45, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
Thank you Jacques for adding the statement: however I think it is  > time to remove the entire section of 17.12.08 since we have enough > 
releases out of 18.12 already. The release 17.12.08 will always be > 

available in the archive. > > Jacopo

Re: OFBiz releases EOL (End Of Life) announcement [was Re: [ofbiz-site] branch master updated: More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)]

2022-01-04 Thread Michael Brohl 

+1

with a few additions: I think that the project should have a planned 
roadmap with more or less fixed release dates/cycles and a clear 
pre-planned EOL plan.


We should also specify what EOL means for us and if there is a step 
between. I think of making bugfixes/backports during main support and 
only doing security fixes in a phase after that. EOL would then mean 
ultimately no fixes at all.


For new release branches, we should als TRY to plan which features, big 
changes or deprecations we want to put in and work towards those goals 
(thinking about major framework changes etc. as we started to discuss 
recently).


We should also think about another release number scheme. The inclusion 
of the year/month the branch was created makes the first stable release 
look outdated as we normally have a stabilization time of 2-3 years 
(which we also could change). Maybe that's a discussion for past-22.x


Thanks,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 04.01.22 um 16:04 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

Hi All,

I'd like to discuss about OFBiz releases EOL (End Of Life) announcement.

For instance R17.12 is EOL with 17.12.08. I suggest to make it clear 
on site (if that's not already enough, eg*), to send an email to user 
ML and maybe talk about it in social-media and the blog.


Maybe we could also have a special site page for EOL dates and version 
of our releases? And some words in 
https://ofbiz.apache.org/security.html...


* https://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-17.12.08.html (maybe the de 
facto standard term EOL (End Of Life) is missing?)


Opinions?

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 11:52, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

I agree Jacopo,

Will you handle it?

I made those tiny changes after an answer Mark J. Cox made to Mark 
Thomas in a discussion I read on security-disc...@community.apache.org :


   MT:  <>

   MC: >

There are at least 340+ TLPs*. So I guess it becomes worrying for the 
ASF.


I don't think we are concerned by those worries. So was just a small 
effort in this direction.
I think though that we should discuss about how to handle EOL 
announcements.


* 
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-software-foundation-security-report1


Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 10:45, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
Thank you Jacques for adding the statement: however I think it is  > 
time to remove the entire section of 17.12.08 since we have enough > 
releases out of 18.12 already. The release 17.12.08 will always be > 

available in the archive. > > Jacopo

OFBiz releases EOL (End Of Life) announcement [was Re: [ofbiz-site] branch master updated: More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)]

2022-01-04 Thread Jacques Le Roux 

Hi All,

I'd like to discuss about OFBiz releases EOL (End Of Life) announcement.

For instance R17.12 is EOL with 17.12.08. I suggest to make it clear on site (if that's not already enough, eg*), to send an email to user ML and 
maybe talk about it in social-media and the blog.


Maybe we could also have a special site page for EOL dates and version of our 
releases? And some words in https://ofbiz.apache.org/security.html...

* https://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-17.12.08.html (maybe the de facto 
standard term EOL (End Of Life) is missing?)

Opinions?

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 11:52, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

I agree Jacopo,

Will you handle it?

I made those tiny changes after an answer Mark J. Cox made to Mark Thomas in a 
discussion I read on security-disc...@community.apache.org :

   MT:  <>

   MC: <>

There are at least 340+ TLPs*. So I guess it becomes worrying for the ASF.

I don't think we are concerned by those worries. So was just a small effort in 
this direction.
I think though that we should discuss about how to handle EOL announcements.

* 
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-software-foundation-security-report1

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 10:45, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
Thank you Jacques for adding the statement: however I think it is  > time to remove the entire section of 17.12.08 since we have enough > releases 
out of 18.12 already. The release 17.12.08 will always be > 

available in the archive. > > Jacopo

Re: [ofbiz-site] branch master updated: More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)

2022-01-04 Thread Jacopo Cappellato 
Thank you Jacques,

I have now published the change.

Jacopo


On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:53 AM Jacques Le Roux
 wrote:
>
> I agree Jacopo,
>
> Will you handle it?
>
> I made those tiny changes after an answer Mark J. Cox made to Mark Thomas in 
> a discussion I read on security-disc...@community.apache.org :
>
> MT:  < regularly really are healthy. Could they realistically respond to a
> security vulnerability in a reasonable time frame? If not, we need to
> move them to the attic.>>
>
> MC: < users so
> they know the status of what they're using.  There are quite a number of
> examples where a project has responded to a vulnerability reporter that
> some version is EOL but it's not been clear enough on their pages, nor any
> real announcement ever having being made.  We need a consistent policy on
> what to do about vulnerabilities that come up in EOL versions, and when to
> allocate them CVE names ('there's an unfixed issue in X") in order to help
> users with scanning tools also notice when they're using out of date and
> now insecure projects.>>
>
> There are at least 340+ TLPs*. So I guess it becomes worrying for the ASF.
>
> I don't think we are concerned by those worries. So was just a small effort 
> in this direction.
> I think though that we should discuss about how to handle EOL announcements.
>
> * 
> https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-software-foundation-security-report1
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 04/01/2022 à 10:45, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> > Thank you Jacques for adding the statement: however I think it is  > time 
> > to remove the entire section of 17.12.08 since we have enough > releases 
> > out of 18.12 already. The release 17.12.08 will always be >
> available in the archive. > > Jacopo

Re: [ofbiz-site] branch master updated: More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)

2022-01-04 Thread Jacques Le Roux 

I agree Jacopo,

Will you handle it?

I made those tiny changes after an answer Mark J. Cox made to Mark Thomas in a 
discussion I read on security-disc...@community.apache.org :

   MT:  <>

   MC: <>

There are at least 340+ TLPs*. So I guess it becomes worrying for the ASF.

I don't think we are concerned by those worries. So was just a small effort in 
this direction.
I think though that we should discuss about how to handle EOL announcements.

* 
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-software-foundation-security-report1

Jacques

Le 04/01/2022 à 10:45, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
Thank you Jacques for adding the statement: however I think it is  > time to remove the entire section of 17.12.08 since we have enough > releases out of 18.12 already. The release 17.12.08 will always be > 

available in the archive. > > Jacopo

Re: [ofbiz-site] branch master updated: More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)

2022-01-04 Thread Jacopo Cappellato 
Thank you Jacques for adding the statement: however I think it is time
to remove the entire section of 17.12.08 since we have enough releases
out of 18.12 already. The release 17.12.08 will always be available in
the archive.

Jacopo

On Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 6:55 PM  wrote:
>
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> jleroux pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz-site.git
>
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
>  new a69cf9f  More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)
> a69cf9f is described below
>
> commit a69cf9f4cdeb1b23e3b1db30ada47b52aa7f3dd0
> Author: Jacques Le Roux 
> AuthorDate: Sun Jan 2 18:55:24 2022 +0100
>
> More information about security and EOL (End Of Life)
> ---
>  download.html  | 2 +-
>  security.html  | 2 +-
>  template/page/download.tpl.php | 2 +-
>  template/page/security.tpl.php | 2 +-
>  4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/download.html b/download.html
> index be0b541..51a7d62 100644
> --- a/download.html
> +++ b/download.html
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@
>
>  Apache OFBiz 17.12.08
>  
> - Released on August 2021, this is the eighth and final 
> release of the 17.12 series, that has been stabilized since December 2017.
> + Released on August 2021, this is the eighth and final 
> release of the 17.12 series, that has been stabilized since December 2017. 
> That means that the release17.12 branch has reached its End Of Life (EOL) and 
> is no longer supported from a security perspective
>   href="https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-17.12.08.zip; 
> target="external" >Download OFBiz 17.12.08
>   href="https://downloads.apache.org/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-17.12.08.zip.asc; 
> target="external">[PGP]
>   href="https://downloads.apache.org/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-17.12.08.zip.sha512; 
> target="external">[SHA512]
> diff --git a/security.html b/security.html
> index 12efce9..0a05ab9 100644
> --- a/security.html
> +++ b/security.html
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
>  Note that we no longer create CVEs for post-auth attacks done 
> using demo credentials, notably using the admin user.
>   https://s.apache.org/dsj2p;> Rather create 
> bugs reports in our issue tracker (Jira) for that.
>
> -The main reason why we no longer create CVEs for post-auth 
> attacks done using demo credentials is because
> +The main reason we no longer create CVEs for post-auth 
> attacks done using demo credentials is because
>   href="https://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/trunk/readme/html5/README.html#security;>
>  we highly suggest to OFBiz users to not use credentials demo in 
> production
>   and we expect OFBiz users to do so. We also reject post-auth 
> vulnerabilities because we have a solid CSRF defense.
>
> diff --git a/template/page/download.tpl.php b/template/page/download.tpl.php
> index d4ec4d5..892cc2f 100644
> --- a/template/page/download.tpl.php
> +++ b/template/page/download.tpl.php
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
>
>  Apache OFBiz 17.12.08
>  
> - Released on August 2021, this is the eighth and final 
> release of the 17.12 series, that has been stabilized since December 2017.
> + Released on August 2021, this is the eighth and final 
> release of the 17.12 series, that has been stabilized since December 2017. 
> That means that the release17.12 branch has reached its End Of Life (EOL) and 
> is no longer supported from a security perspective
>   href="https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-17.12.08.zip; 
> target="external" >Download OFBiz 17.12.08
>   href="https://downloads.apache.org/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-17.12.08.zip.asc; 
> target="external">[PGP]
>   href="https://downloads.apache.org/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-17.12.08.zip.sha512; 
> target="external">[SHA512]
> diff --git a/template/page/security.tpl.php b/template/page/security.tpl.php
> index 532a9f7..c6ee66a 100644
> --- a/template/page/security.tpl.php
> +++ b/template/page/security.tpl.php
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>  Note that we no longer create CVEs for post-auth attacks done 
> using demo credentials, notably using the admin user.
>   https://s.apache.org/dsj2p;> Rather create 
> bugs reports in our issue tracker (Jira) for that.
>
> -The main reason why we no longer create CVEs for post-auth 
> attacks done using demo credentials is because
> +The main reason we no longer create CVEs for post-auth 
> attacks done using demo credentials is because
>   href="https://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/trunk/readme/html5/README.html#security;>
>  we highly suggest to OFBiz users to not use credentials demo in 
> production
>   and we expect