On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:10:57PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 3/24/22 18:21, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:49:14AM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > >> On 3/24/22 10:11, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:56:29AM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > >>>> As per private discussion with Theo de Raadt, OpenBSD does not consider > >>>> bugs in its xnf(4) that allow a backend to cause mischief to be security > >>>> issues. I believe the same applies to its xbf(4). Should the support > >>>> document be updated? > >>> > >>> I think that's already reflected in the support document: > >>> > >>> 'Status, OpenBSD: Supported, Security support external' > >>> > >>> Since the security support is external it's my understanding OpenBSD > >>> security team gets to decide what's a security issue and what is not. > >>> > >>> That however creates differences in the level of support offered by > >>> the different OSes, but I think that's unavoidable. It's also hard to > >>> track the status here because those are external components in > >>> separate code bases. > >>> > >>> Could be added as a mention together with the Windows note about > >>> frontends trusting backends, but then I would fear this is likely to > >>> get out of sync if OpenBSD ever changes their frontends to support > >>> untrusted backends (even if not considered as a security issue). > >> > >> As a Qubes OS developer, I still think this is useful information and > >> should be documented. For instance, if I choose to add proper OpenBSD > >> guest support to Qubes OS (as opposed to the current “you can run > >> anything in an HVM” situation), I might decide to have OpenBSD > >> guests use devices emulated by a Linux-based stubdomain, since the > >> stubdomain’s netfront and blkfront drivers *are* security-supported > >> against malicious backends. I might also choose to have a warning in > >> the GUI when switching the NetVM of an OpenBSD guest to something other > >> than the empty string (meaning no network access) or the (normally > >> fairly trusted) sys-firewall or sys-whonix qubes. > > > > I'm with Roger on this - when security support is external, such > > information in xen.git could easily become stale. If anything, there > > could be a link to OpenBSD security status info, maintained by whoever > > such support provides. > > This ought to be on https://man.openbsd.org/xnf.4 and > https://man.openbsd.org/xbf.4, but it is not. Should I send a patch?
You should discuss with the OpenBSD people I think, I really have no idea where those limitations should be listed. Introducing a man page 'Caveats' or 'Limitations' sections would seem suitable to me, but it's ultimately up to them. Thanks, Roger.
