Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active 
PRs on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot point.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an existing
>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not control 
>>> and do
>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache infrastructure 
>>> team
>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The same
>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>
>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this proposal. 
>> While
>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes 
>> maintain
>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same. In 
>> this
>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing to do
>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is 
>> bringing
>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and another 
> on Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of 
> them was caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how 
> it is different.
>
> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For 
> newly introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I 
> don't think it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it 
> is important to eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>
>>
>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until 
>>> dependency
>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor 
>>> priority,
>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does not 
>>> have a
>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case there 
>>> is a
>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a PMC
>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1 as a
>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual 
>>> contributor, it is
>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick" 
>>> for an
>>> individual contributor.
>>>
>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will make 
>> people
>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people 
>> contributing
>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will be or
>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other 
>> issue. In
>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to 
>> build
>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I don't
>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a 
>> matching CVE
>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like 
>> merging a
>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given a
>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will notify 
>> about
>> CVEs.
> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues keeping 
> PRs open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a 
> failed build is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an 
> individual contributor.
>
> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings regular 
> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline. 
> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing PRs 
> and add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be 
> reviewed and accepted). The regular development will continue with the 
> only exception that the next commit to be merged must address the 
> build issue (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>
> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put 
> effort in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that 
> only checks for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing 
> CVE in public?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an existing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be 
>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate? In 
>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time for the
>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken (as a 
>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe security 
>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes available, 
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with newly
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can 
>>>>>>> always know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail 
>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no 
>>>>>> set time
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing relevant
>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from 
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario, but 
>>>>>> I think
>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check existing
>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why 
>>>>> require
>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does not
>>>>> affect
>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>
>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time for 
>>>>> a PR
>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does 
>>>>> not mean
>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual contributor 
>>>>>> and PR
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a severe
>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the project,
>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a 
>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as 
>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies that
>>>>>> create
>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the 
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> put
>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not the
>>>>>> cause
>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are going 
>>>>>> to get
>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we have 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is also
>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build 
>>>>>> issues are
>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a 
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions, 
>>>>>> project is a
>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of 
>>>>> contributors.
>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not 
>>>>> provide
>>>>> any
>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It 
>>>>> becomes a
>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members 
>>>>> and those
>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that 
>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>> are
>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a 
>>>>> community,
>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or better
>>>>> take
>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation 
>>>>> that I
>>>>> see
>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate 
>>>>> contributions,
>>>>> why
>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit test? 
>>>>> Should
>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as 
>>>>> well? What
>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar 
>>>>> to what
>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>> committer
>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for 
>>>>> whatever
>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as 
>>>>> well, that
>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other 
>>>>> reasons that
>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't introduce,
>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in the 
>>>> same
>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is no 
>>>> reason
>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled 
>>>> separtely
>>>> and
>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job on a
>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs 
>>>> discovered and
>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even 
>>>> reduce the
>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach (carrot 
>>>> and
>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be 
>>>>>>>> discussed on a
>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix is
>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for the
>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the 
>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of 
>>>>>>>>> what and
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the 
>>>>>>>>> CVE may
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be 
>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be the
>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a newer 
>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has happened
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't 
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build fails,
>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to assess
>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release. 
>>>>>>>>> This could
>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases it 
>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc 
>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also 
>>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are suggesting, 
>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From experience 
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a new
>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue and
>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there is 
>>>>>>>>> a cve
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect us
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality *and* 
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires 
>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of the
>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception like 
>>>>>>>>>> we did
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of 
>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to 
>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR 
>>>>>>>>>> introduces new
>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing 
>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is there 
>>>>>>>>>> a way
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a newly
>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but the 
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the details, it
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there 
>>>>>>>>>>> was no
>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we 
>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for 
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires 
>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to recognize a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line? Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I get 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test, severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

I don't see why it will be beneficial for the community to do something 
manually when it can be automated.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/1/17 17:09, Munagala Ramanath wrote:
>   Failing the CI build seems too drastic. My suggestion is to create a new profile that activates thisfunctionality and encourage people to run with this profile and file JIRAs when somethingexciting happens.
> Ram
>      On Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 1:26:00 PM PDT, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>   
>   Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will be
> interested fixing the issues.
>
> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as pre-existing,
> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the next
> release?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
>> prevent
>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move the
>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs
>> to
>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
>>> already, IMO.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
>> when
>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
>> additional
>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>
>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it was
>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
>> but
>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
>> notifies
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active
>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
>> point.
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
>> control
>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same.
>> In
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing
>> to
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
>> another
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
>> don't
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does
>> not
>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
>> there
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a
>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
>> as a
>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick"
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
>> make
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will
>> be
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given
>> a
>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
>> notify
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
>> keeping
>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
>> regular
>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
>> PRs
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only
>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
>> public?
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate?
>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is
>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases
>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect
>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I
>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>    

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Munagala Ramanath <am...@yahoo.com.INVALID>]

 Failing the CI build seems too drastic. My suggestion is to create a new profile that activates thisfunctionality and encourage people to run with this profile and file JIRAs when somethingexciting happens.
Ram
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 1:26:00 PM PDT, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:  
 
 Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will be
interested fixing the issues.

Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as pre-existing,
we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the next
release?


On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
> prevent
> >>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> >>>
> >>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
> >> needed.
> >>
> > After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move the
> > check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs
> to
> > be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
> > already, IMO.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> >>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
> when
> >>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
> >>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> >>>
> >>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> additional
> >> checks that verify the PR better.
> >>
> > Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it was
> > introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Vlad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
> but
> >>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
> notifies
> >>>> the
> >>>> interested parties.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active
> >>>> PRs
> >>>>
> >>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
> point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
> >>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
> control
> >>>>>>>> and do
> >>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> infrastructure
> >>>>>>>> team
> >>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
> >>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
> proposal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While
> >>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
> >>>>>>> maintain
> >>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same.
> In
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing
> to
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
> >>>>>>> bringing
> >>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
> another
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them
> >>>>>> was
> >>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
> >>>>>> different.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
> >>>>>> newly
> >>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
> don't
> >>>>>> think
> >>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
> >>>>>> important
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
> >>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
> >>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
> >>>>>>>> priority,
> >>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does
> not
> >>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
> there
> >>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a
> PMC
> >>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
> as a
> >>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> >>>>>>>> contributor,
> >>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick"
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
> make
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
> >>>>>>> contributing
> >>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will
> be
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
> >>>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to
> >>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
> >>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
> >>>>>>> matching
> >>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
> >>>>>>> merging a
> >>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given
> a
> >>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
> notify
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> CVEs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
> keeping
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed
> >>>>>> build
> >>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
> >>>>>> contributor.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
> regular
> >>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
> >>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
> PRs
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
> >>>>>> reviewed
> >>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
> >>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
> >>>>>> effort
> >>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only
> >>>>>> checks
> >>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
> public?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
> >>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate?
> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
> (as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>> member
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> available,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> found
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> >>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no
> >>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
> >>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
> >>>>>>>>>>> looking
> >>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
> but
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
> >>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
> >>>>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does
> >>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> affect
> >>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
> >>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
> >>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does
> >>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> contributor
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
> project,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> including
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the
> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> cause
> >>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
> going
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
> >>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a
> >>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> >>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
> >>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
> >>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> >>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> >>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
> >>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
> >>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation
> >>>>>>>>>> that I
> >>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> >>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
> test?
> >>>>>>>>>> Should
> >>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
> >>>>>>>>>> well?
> >>>>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
> >>>>>>>>>> committer
> >>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
> >>>>>>>>>> whatever
> >>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
> >>>>>>>>>> well,
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
> >>>>>>>>>> reasons
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
> >>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in
> the
> >>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is
> no
> >>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
> >>>>>>>>> separtely
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
> >>>>>>>>> discovered
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
> >>>>>>>>> reduce
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
> (carrot
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
> discussed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix
> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
> newer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
> fails,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> suggesting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect
> us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
> *and*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
> details,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I
> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
>
  

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Do you mean that blocking my PR 
https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 is too drastic? I fully 
agree :). Why not to apply the same rule to that PR?

Will you agree that somebody needs to look into CVE, build issues or 
failed unit tests? If yes, who is that "somebody" is?

Let me give you another example. I'd like to contribute unit test 
log4j.properties cleanup (https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/584), 
but it fails due to incorrect assumptions done in LoggerUtilTest and 
LogFileInformationTest. Would you expect me to fix those assumptions or 
simply disable unit test?

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/2/17 10:48, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g. getting
> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can have
> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
>
> Sanjay
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will be
>> interested fixing the issues.
>>
>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as pre-existing,
>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the next
>> release?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
>>> prevent
>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
>>>>> needed.
>>>>>
>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
>> the
>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs
>>> to
>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
>>>> already, IMO.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
>>> when
>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
>>> additional
>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>>
>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
>> was
>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
>>> but
>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
>>> notifies
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
>> active
>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
>>> point.
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
>> changes
>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same.
>>> In
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
>> nothing
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
>> is
>>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
>>> another
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
>> them
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
>> is
>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
>> employer
>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a
>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
>> "stick"
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
>> will
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
>> to
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
>>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
>> given
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
>>> notify
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
>> failed
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
>>> regular
>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
>> only
>>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
>>> public?
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
>> candidate?
>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
>>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
>> policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
>>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
>> is
>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
>>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
>>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
>> cases
>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
>> affect
>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
>>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
>>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
>> apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
>> line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
>> community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I
>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
>> (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

There is no question of which build as there is only one build. Once 
somebody puts an effort to create nightly build we can discuss moving 
the check from the current build to the nightly build, but then the 
question will be what do we do with PR that introduces new dependencies 
with CVE? Remember that goal of the PR is to prevent dependencies with 
severe CVE being introduced into the project and also to prevent 
technical debt at the time of a release.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/2/17 14:38, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory release
> step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these, detection
> of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those will
> work even if there are no PRs.
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a “whitelisting”
>> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review
>> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
>>
>> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a
>> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt slipping
>> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I
>> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and would
>> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
>>
>> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE listings
>> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases progressed.
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
>> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
>> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> .
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ananth
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
>>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
>>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
>>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
>> getting
>>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can
>> have
>>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
>>>
>>> Sanjay
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will
>> be
>>>> interested fixing the issues.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
>> pre-existing,
>>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the
>> next
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
>> merging
>>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
>>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or
>> not.
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
>>>> the
>>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check
>> needs
>>>>> to
>>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right
>> place
>>>>>> already, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
>>>>> additional
>>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
>>>> was
>>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
>>>>> notifies
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
>>>> active
>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>>>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the
>> same.
>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
>>>> nothing
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
>>>> employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
>> vendor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community
>> does
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as
>> a
>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
>>>> "stick"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some
>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise.
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
>>>>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
>>>> given
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
>>>>> notify
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
>>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
>> offline.
>>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the
>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the
>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
>>>>> public?
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
>>>> candidate?
>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
>>>>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>>>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency
>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build?
>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set
>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>>>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in
>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
>>>> policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will
>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved
>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
>>>>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall
>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
>>>> is
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could
>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
>>>>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a
>> fix
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may
>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not
>> be
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
>>>>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
>>>> cases
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in
>> adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>>>>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
>>>> affect
>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
>>>>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version
>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
>>>>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be
>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
>>>> apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
>>>> line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
>>>> community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But
>> I
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
>>>> (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it
>> fails
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>]

After the PR CI build fails it should be straightforward to see if the
dependency was part of the PR or not.


On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> Check is fine as long as we can identify whether the CVE was introduced by
> a PR. It might still be useful to fix a CVE even if there is no release,
> downstream projects might be able to use it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Check as part of PR build is needed to ensure no new issues are
> introduced.
> > I don't think it is necessary to have another build to notice
> pre-existing
> > issues since releases won't occur without prior PRs.
> >
> > Whitelisting suggestion is for pre-existing problems and not for those
> > introduced by a PR.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If the PR introduces a CVE by all means lets fail it initally and later
> > > look at whitelisting it if needed. Why fail all PRs that haven't caused
> > the
> > > problem. What happens when there are no PRs in a given period, wouldn't
> > it
> > > be better to know above crtiical CVEs (that this proposal is trying to
> > > address) sooner than wait till some random PR is raised. What if there
> > are
> > > no PRs for a month. I think it makes sense to have a separate build
> that
> > > will catch these errors.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than
> > agreed
> > > > is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?
> > >
> > >
> > > > - The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a
> > > > violation is detected
> > > > - A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by
> creating
> > > > the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
> > > > - The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist
> file
> > or
> > > > the build break
> > > > - The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA
> > ticket
> > > > creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
> > > > - whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given
> > here
> > > > https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/
> suppression.html
> > > > - subsequent PR update should no longer break the build
> > > > - there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be addressed
> in
> > > the
> > > > subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project
> > modules
> > > > that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Ananth
> > > >
> > > > > On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory
> > > > release
> > > > > step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these,
> > > > detection
> > > > > of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests.
> Those
> > > > will
> > > > > work even if there are no PRs.
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a
> > > > “whitelisting”
> > > > >> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the
> > review
> > > > >> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works
> > towards a
> > > > >> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt
> > > > slipping
> > > > >> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process
> which
> > I
> > > > >> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare
> > and
> > > > would
> > > > >> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE
> > > > listings
> > > > >> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases
> > > progressed.
> > > > >> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
> > > > >> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
> > > > >> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-
> Spark.html>
> > .
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> Ananth
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sanjay@datatorrent.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also
> > second
> > > > >>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> > > > >>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic
> > > > measures.
> > > > >>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect
> (e.g.
> > > > >> getting
> > > > >>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues)
> it
> > > can
> > > > >> have
> > > > >>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sanjay
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very
> few
> > > will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>> interested fixing the issues.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
> > > > >> pre-existing,
> > > > >>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior
> to
> > > the
> > > > >> next
> > > > >>>> release?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1
> on
> > > > >> merging
> > > > >>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching
> > CVE
> > > is
> > > > >>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the
> CVE
> > or
> > > > >> not.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org
> > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still
> necessary
> > to
> > > > >>>>> prevent
> > > > >>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of
> > > effort
> > > > is
> > > > >>>>>>> needed.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense
> to
> > > move
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the
> > check
> > > > >> needs
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the
> > right
> > > > >> place
> > > > >>>>>> already, IMO.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from
> Category
> > X
> > > > >>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with
> the
> > > > issue
> > > > >>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to
> deal
> > > > with
> > > > >>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against
> adding
> > > > >>>>> additional
> > > > >>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the
> > time
> > > > it
> > > > >>>> was
> > > > >>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not
> > > > static.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is
> > > > valuable
> > > > >>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build
> > that
> > > > >>>>> notifies
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> interested parties.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > vrozov@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at
> > the
> > > > >>>> active
> > > > >>>>>>>>> PRs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at
> the
> > > moot
> > > > >>>>> point.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > vrozov@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not
> break
> > > an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do
> > not
> > > > >>>>> control
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> > > > >>>>> infrastructure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> team
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex
> > > > builds.
> > > > >>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies
> with
> > > > severe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from
> > this
> > > > >>>>> proposal.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> While
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases,
> the
> > > > >>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run
> > the
> > > > >> same.
> > > > >>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes
> have
> > > > >>>> nothing
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that
> > if a
> > > > PR
> > > > >>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI
> side
> > > and
> > > > >>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and
> > none
> > > of
> > > > >>>> them
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see
> > how
> > > > it
> > > > >>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> different.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE
> > introduced.
> > > > For
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any
> > > case I
> > > > >>>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced,
> it
> > is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> important
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open
> > > until
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless
> an
> > > > >>>> employer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on
> that
> > > > >> vendor
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the
> > community
> > > > >> does
> > > > >>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In
> a
> > > case
> > > > >>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license)
> > you
> > > > as
> > > > >> a
> > > > >>>>> PMC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you
> > > consider
> > > > -1
> > > > >>>>> as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an
> individual
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community,
> not
> > a
> > > > >>>> "stick"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping
> > that
> > > > will
> > > > >>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> people
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer,
> > > people
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the
> > > outcome
> > > > >>>> will
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with
> > some
> > > > >> other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is
> > > > similar
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that
> > > > premise.
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt
> > > whenever a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matching
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary
> reason
> > > > like
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have
> > you
> > > > >>>> given
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build
> that
> > > will
> > > > >>>>> notify
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no
> > > issues
> > > > >>>>> keeping
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> PRs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment.
> > Fixing a
> > > > >>>> failed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an
> > > individual
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason)
> > brings
> > > > >>>>> regular
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
> > > > >> offline.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on
> > > > existing
> > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those
> changes
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with
> > the
> > > > >> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address
> > the
> > > > >> build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not
> plan
> > to
> > > > put
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate
> build
> > > that
> > > > >>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing
> CVE
> > > in
> > > > >>>>> public?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >> vrozov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in
> > an
> > > > >>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database,
> will
> > > it
> > > > be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
> > > > >>>> candidate?
> > > > >>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much
> > less
> > > > time
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to
> be
> > > > taken
> > > > >>>>> (as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with
> > severe
> > > > >>>>> security
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information
> becomes
> > > > >>>>> available,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the
> > dependency
> > > > >> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario.
> > We
> > > > can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't
> need
> > > to
> > > > >>>> fail
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting.
> > There
> > > > is
> > > > >>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for
> > > > addressing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing
> > > anyone
> > > > >>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring
> > > > scenario,
> > > > >>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency
> with
> > > > >> severe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and
> > > check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe
> > vulnerabilities.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI
> > > build?
> > > > >> Why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI
> build
> > > and
> > > > >>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no
> > set
> > > > >> time
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the
> > > dependency
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that
> > > "anyone"
> > > > >>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> > > > >>>>> contributor
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once
> there
> > > is a
> > > > >>>>> severe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about
> > the
> > > > >>>>> project,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR
> > being
> > > > in
> > > > >> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated
> > > before
> > > > >> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and
> without
> > > > >>>> policies
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the
> > PRs
> > > > are
> > > > >>>>> going
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not
> > > confident
> > > > we
> > > > >>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this
> > expediently.
> > > It
> > > > >> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged
> till
> > > > build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE
> is
> > > same
> > > > >>>> as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual
> > > contributions,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a
> > number
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and
> > > will
> > > > >> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their
> > > > contribution.
> > > > >>>> It
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active
> community
> > > > >>>> members
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share
> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as
> > part
> > > > of a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be
> > > resolved
> > > > >> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
> > > > >>>> explanation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for
> legitimate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary
> obstacle.
> > > > Unit
> > > > >>>>> test?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit
> > > tests
> > > > >> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to
> > fail
> > > > >>>> similar
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too
> and
> > > rely
> > > > >>>> on a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build
> > > fails
> > > > >> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for
> > another
> > > PR
> > > > >> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no
> any
> > > > other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we
> > > don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated
> would
> > > fall
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for
> that.
> > > > There
> > > > >>>> is
> > > > >>>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be
> > > > handled
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an
> > > > independent
> > > > >>>> job
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new
> > > CVEs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You
> > could
> > > > >> even
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick
> > > approach
> > > > >>>>> (carrot
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >>>>> vrozov@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to
> > be
> > > > >>>>> discussed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published
> > until
> > > a
> > > > >> fix
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become
> > > > available
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which
> > > case,
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that
> > > > choice
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I
> > > > mentioned
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though
> it
> > > may
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there
> may
> > > not
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to
> upgrade
> > > to a
> > > > >>>>> newer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow
> semver
> > > > (has
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution
> > comes
> > > > from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build
> > succeeds,
> > > I
> > > > >>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI
> > > build
> > > > >>>>> fails,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that
> we
> > > need
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
> > > > >> release.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in
> > other
> > > > >>>> cases
> > > > >>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often
> > in
> > > > >> adhoc
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from
> community. I
> > > am
> > > > >>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you
> are
> > > > >>>>> suggesting,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues.
> From
> > > > >>>>> experience
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this
> > now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It
> > may
> > > > be a
> > > > >>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
> > > > >> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be
> > > fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible
> for
> > > the
> > > > >>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what
> happens
> > if
> > > > >>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it
> > doesnt
> > > > >>>> affect
> > > > >>>>> us
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of
> > > functionality
> > > > >>>>> *and*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade
> > > > requires
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major
> > > version
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an
> > > > exception
> > > > >>>>> like
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting
> > > instead
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process
> could
> > be
> > > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a
> > PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
> > > > >> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to
> > failure.
> > > Is
> > > > >>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in
> existing
> > > or
> > > > a
> > > > >>>>> newly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI
> > build,
> > > > but
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get
> > the
> > > > >>>>> details,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks
> > > like
> > > > >>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does?
> > Are
> > > > we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the
> automated
> > > > build
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something
> that
> > > > >>>> requires
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would
> > be
> > > > >> fine.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
> > > > >>>> apex-core/pull/585
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community
> > to
> > > > >>>>> recognize
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the
> > code
> > > > >>>> line?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
> > > > >>>> community/PMC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a
> > > > committer.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as
> > > important
> > > > >> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit
> > analysis.
> > > > But
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>>> get
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any
> > > > material
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along
> the
> > > > lines
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the
> > benefit
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>> cost
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit
> > > test,
> > > > >>>>> severe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly
> small
> > > > >>>> (except
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that
> > other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards
> > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI
> > > build
> > > > >> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why
> > it
> > > > >> fails
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I
> don't
> > > > want
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit
> > > analysis".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a
> > creative
> > > > way
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Please see PR https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 comments and 
APEXCORE-790 for the further discussion and the resolution. There is 
still one open item - updating contributor/committer guidelines if 
someone wants to help with it.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/2/17 16:55, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> Can you check if there is a possibility to distinguish between 
> existing dependencies and dependencies introduced in a PR. AFAIK, it 
> does not exist.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
> On 11/2/17 16:50, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> Check is fine as long as we can identify whether the CVE was 
>> introduced by
>> a PR. It might still be useful to fix a CVE even if there is no release,
>> downstream projects might be able to use it.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Check as part of PR build is needed to ensure no new issues are 
>>> introduced.
>>> I don't think it is necessary to have another build to notice 
>>> pre-existing
>>> issues since releases won't occur without prior PRs.
>>>
>>> Whitelisting suggestion is for pre-existing problems and not for those
>>> introduced by a PR.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni 
>>> <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the PR introduces a CVE by all means lets fail it initally and 
>>>> later
>>>> look at whitelisting it if needed. Why fail all PRs that haven't 
>>>> caused
>>> the
>>>> problem. What happens when there are no PRs in a given period, 
>>>> wouldn't
>>> it
>>>> be better to know above crtiical CVEs (that this proposal is trying to
>>>> address) sooner than wait till some random PR is raised. What if there
>>> are
>>>> no PRs for a month. I think it makes sense to have a separate build 
>>>> that
>>>> will catch these errors.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than
>>> agreed
>>>>> is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?
>>>>
>>>>> - The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a
>>>>> violation is detected
>>>>> - A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by 
>>>>> creating
>>>>> the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
>>>>> - The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist 
>>>>> file
>>> or
>>>>> the build break
>>>>> - The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA
>>> ticket
>>>>> creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
>>>>> - whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given
>>> here
>>>>> https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/suppression.html
>>>>> - subsequent PR update should no longer break the build
>>>>> - there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be 
>>>>> addressed in
>>>> the
>>>>> subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project
>>> modules
>>>>> that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Ananth
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory
>>>>> release
>>>>>> step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these,
>>>>> detection
>>>>>> of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. 
>>>>>> Those
>>>>> will
>>>>>> work even if there are no PRs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a
>>>>> “whitelisting”
>>>>>>> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the
>>> review
>>>>>>> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works
>>> towards a
>>>>>>> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt
>>>>> slipping
>>>>>>> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which
>>> I
>>>>>>> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare
>>> and
>>>>> would
>>>>>>> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE
>>>>> listings
>>>>>>> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases
>>>> progressed.
>>>>>>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
>>>>>>> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
>>>>>>> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html>
>>> .
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Ananth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also
>>> second
>>>>>>>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
>>>>>>>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic
>>>>> measures.
>>>>>>>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect 
>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it
>>>> can
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few
>>>> will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> interested fixing the issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
>>>>>>> pre-existing,
>>>>>>>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed 
>>>>>>>>> prior to
>>>> the
>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am 
>>>>>>>>>> -1 on
>>>>>>> merging
>>>>>>>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching
>>> CVE
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE
>>> or
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of
>>>> effort
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to
>>>> move
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the
>>> check
>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the
>>> right
>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>>> already, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category
>>> X
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the
>>> time
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not
>>>>> static.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is
>>>>> valuable
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build
>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> notifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the
>>>> moot
>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex
>>>>> builds.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with
>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from
>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run
>>> the
>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that
>>> if a
>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and
>>> none
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see
>>> how
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE
>>> introduced.
>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any
>>>> case I
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open
>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an
>>>>>>>>> employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> vendor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the
>>> community
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a
>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license)
>>> you
>>>>> as
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you
>>>> consider
>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not
>>> a
>>>>>>>>> "stick"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping
>>> that
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer,
>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the
>>>> outcome
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with
>>> some
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is
>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that
>>>>> premise.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt
>>>> whenever a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have
>>> you
>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that
>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> notify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no
>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment.
>>> Fixing a
>>>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an
>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason)
>>> brings
>>>>>>>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
>>>>>>> offline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on
>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes
>>> to
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with
>>> the
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address
>>> the
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan
>>> to
>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> public?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in
>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>> it
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
>>>>>>>>> candidate?
>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much
>>> less
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be
>>>>> taken
>>>>>>>>>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with
>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>>>>>>>>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the
>>> dependency
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario.
>>> We
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting.
>>> There
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for
>>>>> addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing
>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring
>>>>> scenario,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and
>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe
>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI
>>>> build?
>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no
>>> set
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the
>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that
>>>> "anyone"
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>>>>>>>>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there
>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR
>>> being
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated
>>>> before
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions
>>> that
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the
>>> PRs
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not
>>>> confident
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this
>>> expediently.
>>>> It
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till
>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is
>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual
>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a
>>> number
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and
>>>> will
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their
>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as
>>> part
>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be
>>>> resolved
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstacle.
>>>>> Unit
>>>>>>>>>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit
>>>> tests
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to
>>> fail
>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and
>>>> rely
>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build
>>>> fails
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for
>>> another
>>>> PR
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any
>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would
>>>> fall
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that.
>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be
>>>>> handled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an
>>>>> independent
>>>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new
>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You
>>> could
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick
>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published
>>> until
>>>> a
>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become
>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which
>>>> case,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that
>>>>> choice
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though it
>>>> may
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>> not
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade
>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semver
>>>>> (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution
>>> comes
>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build
>>> succeeds,
>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI
>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we
>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in
>>> other
>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often
>>> in
>>>>>>> adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. I
>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this
>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It
>>> may
>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be
>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens
>>> if
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it
>>> doesnt
>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of
>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade
>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major
>>>> version
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an
>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting
>>>> instead
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could
>>> be
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a
>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to
>>> failure.
>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>> or
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI
>>> build,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does?
>>> Are
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated
>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would
>>> be
>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>>> apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the
>>> code
>>>>>>>>> line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
>>>>>>>>> community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a
>>>>> committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as
>>>> important
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit
>>> analysis.
>>>>> But
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any
>>>>> material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> lines
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the
>>> benefit
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit
>>>> test,
>>>>>>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>>> (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that
>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI
>>>> build
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why
>>> it
>>>>>>> fails
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit
>>>> analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a
>>> creative
>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Can you check if there is a possibility to distinguish between existing 
dependencies and dependencies introduced in a PR. AFAIK, it does not exist.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/2/17 16:50, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> Check is fine as long as we can identify whether the CVE was introduced by
> a PR. It might still be useful to fix a CVE even if there is no release,
> downstream projects might be able to use it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Check as part of PR build is needed to ensure no new issues are introduced.
>> I don't think it is necessary to have another build to notice pre-existing
>> issues since releases won't occur without prior PRs.
>>
>> Whitelisting suggestion is for pre-existing problems and not for those
>> introduced by a PR.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If the PR introduces a CVE by all means lets fail it initally and later
>>> look at whitelisting it if needed. Why fail all PRs that haven't caused
>> the
>>> problem. What happens when there are no PRs in a given period, wouldn't
>> it
>>> be better to know above crtiical CVEs (that this proposal is trying to
>>> address) sooner than wait till some random PR is raised. What if there
>> are
>>> no PRs for a month. I think it makes sense to have a separate build that
>>> will catch these errors.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than
>> agreed
>>>> is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?
>>>
>>>> - The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a
>>>> violation is detected
>>>> - A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by creating
>>>> the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
>>>> - The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist file
>> or
>>>> the build break
>>>> - The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA
>> ticket
>>>> creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
>>>> - whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given
>> here
>>>> https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/suppression.html
>>>> - subsequent PR update should no longer break the build
>>>> - there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be addressed in
>>> the
>>>> subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project
>> modules
>>>> that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ananth
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory
>>>> release
>>>>> step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these,
>>>> detection
>>>>> of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those
>>>> will
>>>>> work even if there are no PRs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a
>>>> “whitelisting”
>>>>>> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the
>> review
>>>>>> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works
>> towards a
>>>>>> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt
>>>> slipping
>>>>>> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which
>> I
>>>>>> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare
>> and
>>>> would
>>>>>> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE
>>>> listings
>>>>>> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases
>>> progressed.
>>>>>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
>>>>>> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
>>>>>> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html>
>> .
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Ananth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also
>> second
>>>>>>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
>>>>>>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic
>>>> measures.
>>>>>>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it
>>> can
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few
>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> interested fixing the issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
>>>>>> pre-existing,
>>>>>>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to
>>> the
>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
>>>>>> merging
>>>>>>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching
>> CVE
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE
>> or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary
>> to
>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of
>>> effort
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to
>>> move
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the
>> check
>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the
>> right
>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>> already, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category
>> X
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the
>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the
>> time
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not
>>>> static.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is
>>>> valuable
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build
>> that
>>>>>>>>> notifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at
>> the
>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the
>>> moot
>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break
>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do
>> not
>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>>>>>>>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex
>>>> builds.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with
>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from
>> this
>>>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run
>> the
>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that
>> if a
>>>> PR
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and
>> none
>>> of
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see
>> how
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE
>> introduced.
>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any
>>> case I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open
>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
>>>>>>>> employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
>>>>>> vendor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the
>> community
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a
>>> case
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license)
>> you
>>>> as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you
>>> consider
>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not
>> a
>>>>>>>> "stick"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping
>> that
>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer,
>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the
>>> outcome
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with
>> some
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is
>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that
>>>> premise.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt
>>> whenever a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have
>> you
>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that
>>> will
>>>>>>>>> notify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no
>>> issues
>>>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment.
>> Fixing a
>>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an
>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason)
>> brings
>>>>>>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
>>>>>> offline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on
>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes
>> to
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with
>> the
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address
>> the
>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan
>> to
>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build
>>> that
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE
>>> in
>>>>>>>>> public?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in
>> an
>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will
>>> it
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
>>>>>>>> candidate?
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much
>> less
>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be
>>>> taken
>>>>>>>>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with
>> severe
>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>>>>>>>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the
>> dependency
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario.
>> We
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need
>>> to
>>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting.
>> There
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for
>>>> addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing
>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring
>>>> scenario,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
>>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and
>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe
>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI
>>> build?
>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build
>>> and
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no
>> set
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the
>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that
>>> "anyone"
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>>>>>>>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there
>>> is a
>>>>>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about
>> the
>>>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR
>> being
>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated
>>> before
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
>>>>>>>> policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't
>>> see
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions
>> that
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the
>> PRs
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not
>>> confident
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this
>> expediently.
>>> It
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till
>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is
>>> same
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual
>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a
>> number
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and
>>> will
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their
>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as
>> part
>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be
>>> resolved
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle.
>>>> Unit
>>>>>>>>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit
>>> tests
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to
>> fail
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and
>>> rely
>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build
>>> fails
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for
>> another
>>> PR
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any
>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we
>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would
>>> fall
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that.
>>>> There
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be
>>>> handled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an
>>>> independent
>>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new
>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You
>> could
>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick
>>> approach
>>>>>>>>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to
>> be
>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published
>> until
>>> a
>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become
>>>> available
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which
>>> case,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that
>>>> choice
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I
>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it
>>> may
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may
>>> not
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade
>>> to a
>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver
>>>> (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution
>> comes
>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build
>> succeeds,
>>> I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI
>>> build
>>>>>>>>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we
>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in
>> other
>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often
>> in
>>>>>> adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I
>>> am
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>>>>>>>>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this
>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It
>> may
>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be
>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for
>>> the
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens
>> if
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it
>> doesnt
>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of
>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade
>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major
>>> version
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an
>>>> exception
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting
>>> instead
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could
>> be
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a
>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to
>> failure.
>>> Is
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing
>>> or
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI
>> build,
>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get
>> the
>>>>>>>>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks
>>> like
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does?
>> Are
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated
>>>> build
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would
>> be
>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>> apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community
>> to
>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the
>> code
>>>>>>>> line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
>>>>>>>> community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a
>>>> committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as
>>> important
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit
>> analysis.
>>>> But
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any
>>>> material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the
>>>> lines
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the
>> benefit
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit
>>> test,
>>>>>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
>>>>>>>> (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that
>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI
>>> build
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why
>> it
>>>>>> fails
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't
>>>> want
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit
>>> analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a
>> creative
>>>> way
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

Check is fine as long as we can identify whether the CVE was introduced by
a PR. It might still be useful to fix a CVE even if there is no release,
downstream projects might be able to use it.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:

> Check as part of PR build is needed to ensure no new issues are introduced.
> I don't think it is necessary to have another build to notice pre-existing
> issues since releases won't occur without prior PRs.
>
> Whitelisting suggestion is for pre-existing problems and not for those
> introduced by a PR.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If the PR introduces a CVE by all means lets fail it initally and later
> > look at whitelisting it if needed. Why fail all PRs that haven't caused
> the
> > problem. What happens when there are no PRs in a given period, wouldn't
> it
> > be better to know above crtiical CVEs (that this proposal is trying to
> > address) sooner than wait till some random PR is raised. What if there
> are
> > no PRs for a month. I think it makes sense to have a separate build that
> > will catch these errors.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than
> agreed
> > > is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?
> >
> >
> > > - The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a
> > > violation is detected
> > > - A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by creating
> > > the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
> > > - The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist file
> or
> > > the build break
> > > - The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA
> ticket
> > > creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
> > > - whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given
> here
> > > https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/suppression.html
> > > - subsequent PR update should no longer break the build
> > > - there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be addressed in
> > the
> > > subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project
> modules
> > > that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Ananth
> > >
> > > > On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory
> > > release
> > > > step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these,
> > > detection
> > > > of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those
> > > will
> > > > work even if there are no PRs.
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a
> > > “whitelisting”
> > > >> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the
> review
> > > >> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
> > > >>
> > > >> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works
> towards a
> > > >> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt
> > > slipping
> > > >> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which
> I
> > > >> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare
> and
> > > would
> > > >> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
> > > >>
> > > >> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE
> > > listings
> > > >> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases
> > progressed.
> > > >> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
> > > >> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
> > > >> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html>
> .
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Ananth
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also
> second
> > > >>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> > > >>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic
> > > measures.
> > > >>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
> > > >> getting
> > > >>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it
> > can
> > > >> have
> > > >>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sanjay
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >>>> interested fixing the issues.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
> > > >> pre-existing,
> > > >>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to
> > the
> > > >> next
> > > >>>> release?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
> > > >> merging
> > > >>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching
> CVE
> > is
> > > >>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE
> or
> > > >> not.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
> >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary
> to
> > > >>>>> prevent
> > > >>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of
> > effort
> > > is
> > > >>>>>>> needed.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to
> > move
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the
> check
> > > >> needs
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the
> right
> > > >> place
> > > >>>>>> already, IMO.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category
> X
> > > >>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the
> > > issue
> > > >>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal
> > > with
> > > >>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> > > >>>>> additional
> > > >>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the
> time
> > > it
> > > >>>> was
> > > >>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not
> > > static.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is
> > > valuable
> > > >>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build
> that
> > > >>>>> notifies
> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> interested parties.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org
> > >
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at
> the
> > > >>>> active
> > > >>>>>>>>> PRs
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the
> > moot
> > > >>>>> point.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > vrozov@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break
> > an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do
> not
> > > >>>>> control
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> > > >>>>> infrastructure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> team
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex
> > > builds.
> > > >>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with
> > > severe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from
> this
> > > >>>>> proposal.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> While
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
> > > >>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run
> the
> > > >> same.
> > > >>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
> > > >>>> nothing
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that
> if a
> > > PR
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side
> > and
> > > >>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and
> none
> > of
> > > >>>> them
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see
> how
> > > it
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> different.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE
> introduced.
> > > For
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any
> > case I
> > > >>>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it
> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> important
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open
> > until
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
> > > >>>> employer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
> > > >> vendor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the
> community
> > > >> does
> > > >>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a
> > case
> > > >>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license)
> you
> > > as
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>> PMC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you
> > consider
> > > -1
> > > >>>>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not
> a
> > > >>>> "stick"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping
> that
> > > will
> > > >>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> people
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer,
> > people
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the
> > outcome
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with
> some
> > > >> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is
> > > similar
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that
> > > premise.
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt
> > whenever a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matching
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason
> > > like
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have
> you
> > > >>>> given
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that
> > will
> > > >>>>> notify
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no
> > issues
> > > >>>>> keeping
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> PRs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment.
> Fixing a
> > > >>>> failed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an
> > individual
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason)
> brings
> > > >>>>> regular
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
> > > >> offline.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on
> > > existing
> > > >>>>> PRs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes
> to
> > > be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with
> the
> > > >> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address
> the
> > > >> build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan
> to
> > > put
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build
> > that
> > > >>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> checks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE
> > in
> > > >>>>> public?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >> vrozov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in
> an
> > > >>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will
> > it
> > > be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
> > > >>>> candidate?
> > > >>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much
> less
> > > time
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be
> > > taken
> > > >>>>> (as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with
> severe
> > > >>>>> security
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> > > >>>>> available,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the
> dependency
> > > >> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario.
> We
> > > can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need
> > to
> > > >>>> fail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting.
> There
> > > is
> > > >>>> no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for
> > > addressing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing
> > anyone
> > > >>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring
> > > scenario,
> > > >>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
> > > >> severe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and
> > check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe
> vulnerabilities.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI
> > build?
> > > >> Why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build
> > and
> > > >>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no
> set
> > > >> time
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the
> > dependency
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that
> > "anyone"
> > > >>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> > > >>>>> contributor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there
> > is a
> > > >>>>> severe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about
> the
> > > >>>>> project,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR
> being
> > > in
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated
> > before
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
> > > >>>> policies
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't
> > see
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions
> that
> > > are
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the
> PRs
> > > are
> > > >>>>> going
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not
> > confident
> > > we
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this
> expediently.
> > It
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till
> > > build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is
> > same
> > > >>>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual
> > contributions,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a
> number
> > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and
> > will
> > > >> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their
> > > contribution.
> > > >>>> It
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
> > > >>>> members
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as
> part
> > > of a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be
> > resolved
> > > >> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
> > > >>>> explanation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle.
> > > Unit
> > > >>>>> test?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit
> > tests
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to
> fail
> > > >>>> similar
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and
> > rely
> > > >>>> on a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build
> > fails
> > > >> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for
> another
> > PR
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any
> > > other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we
> > don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would
> > fall
> > > >> in
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that.
> > > There
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be
> > > handled
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an
> > > independent
> > > >>>> job
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new
> > CVEs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You
> could
> > > >> even
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick
> > approach
> > > >>>>> (carrot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >>>>> vrozov@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to
> be
> > > >>>>> discussed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published
> until
> > a
> > > >> fix
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become
> > > available
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which
> > case,
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that
> > > choice
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I
> > > mentioned
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it
> > may
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may
> > not
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade
> > to a
> > > >>>>> newer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver
> > > (has
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution
> comes
> > > from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build
> succeeds,
> > I
> > > >>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI
> > build
> > > >>>>> fails,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we
> > need
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
> > > >> release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in
> other
> > > >>>> cases
> > > >>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often
> in
> > > >> adhoc
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I
> > am
> > > >>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> > > >>>>> suggesting,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> > > >>>>> experience
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this
> now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It
> may
> > > be a
> > > >>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
> > > >> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be
> > fixed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for
> > the
> > > >>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens
> if
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it
> doesnt
> > > >>>> affect
> > > >>>>> us
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of
> > functionality
> > > >>>>> *and*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade
> > > requires
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major
> > version
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an
> > > exception
> > > >>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting
> > instead
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could
> be
> > > to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a
> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
> > > >> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to
> failure.
> > Is
> > > >>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing
> > or
> > > a
> > > >>>>> newly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI
> build,
> > > but
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get
> the
> > > >>>>> details,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks
> > like
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does?
> Are
> > > we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated
> > > build
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
> > > >>>> requires
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would
> be
> > > >> fine.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
> > > >>>> apex-core/pull/585
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community
> to
> > > >>>>> recognize
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the
> code
> > > >>>> line?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
> > > >>>> community/PMC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a
> > > committer.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as
> > important
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit
> analysis.
> > > But
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any
> > > material
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the
> > > lines
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the
> benefit
> > > and
> > > >>>>> cost
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit
> > test,
> > > >>>>> severe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
> > > >>>> (except
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that
> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards
> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI
> > build
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why
> it
> > > >> fails
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't
> > > want
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit
> > analysis".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a
> creative
> > > way
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>]

Check as part of PR build is needed to ensure no new issues are introduced.
I don't think it is necessary to have another build to notice pre-existing
issues since releases won't occur without prior PRs.

Whitelisting suggestion is for pre-existing problems and not for those
introduced by a PR.


On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> If the PR introduces a CVE by all means lets fail it initally and later
> look at whitelisting it if needed. Why fail all PRs that haven't caused the
> problem. What happens when there are no PRs in a given period, wouldn't it
> be better to know above crtiical CVEs (that this proposal is trying to
> address) sooner than wait till some random PR is raised. What if there are
> no PRs for a month. I think it makes sense to have a separate build that
> will catch these errors.
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than agreed
> > is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?
>
>
> > - The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a
> > violation is detected
> > - A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by creating
> > the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
> > - The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist file or
> > the build break
> > - The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA ticket
> > creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
> > - whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given here
> > https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/suppression.html
> > - subsequent PR update should no longer break the build
> > - there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be addressed in
> the
> > subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project modules
> > that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Ananth
> >
> > > On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory
> > release
> > > step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these,
> > detection
> > > of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those
> > will
> > > work even if there are no PRs.
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a
> > “whitelisting”
> > >> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review
> > >> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
> > >>
> > >> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a
> > >> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt
> > slipping
> > >> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I
> > >> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and
> > would
> > >> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
> > >>
> > >> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE
> > listings
> > >> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases
> progressed.
> > >> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
> > >> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
> > >> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> .
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Ananth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
> > >>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> > >>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic
> > measures.
> > >>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
> > >> getting
> > >>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it
> can
> > >> have
> > >>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sanjay
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few
> will
> > >> be
> > >>>> interested fixing the issues.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
> > >> pre-existing,
> > >>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to
> the
> > >> next
> > >>>> release?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
> > >> merging
> > >>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE
> is
> > >>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or
> > >> not.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
> > >>>>> prevent
> > >>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of
> effort
> > is
> > >>>>>>> needed.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to
> move
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check
> > >> needs
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right
> > >> place
> > >>>>>> already, IMO.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> > >>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the
> > issue
> > >>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal
> > with
> > >>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> > >>>>> additional
> > >>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time
> > it
> > >>>> was
> > >>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not
> > static.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is
> > valuable
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
> > >>>>> notifies
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> interested parties.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
> >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
> > >>>> active
> > >>>>>>>>> PRs
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the
> moot
> > >>>>> point.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break
> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
> > >>>>> control
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> > >>>>> infrastructure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> team
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex
> > builds.
> > >>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with
> > severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
> > >>>>> proposal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> While
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
> > >>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the
> > >> same.
> > >>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
> > >>>> nothing
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a
> > PR
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side
> and
> > >>>>> another
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none
> of
> > >>>> them
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how
> > it
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> different.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced.
> > For
> > >>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any
> case I
> > >>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>> think
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> important
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open
> until
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
> > >>>> employer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
> > >> vendor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community
> > >> does
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a
> case
> > >>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you
> > as
> > >> a
> > >>>>> PMC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you
> consider
> > -1
> > >>>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
> > >>>> "stick"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that
> > will
> > >>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> people
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer,
> people
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the
> outcome
> > >>>> will
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some
> > >> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is
> > similar
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that
> > premise.
> > >> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt
> whenever a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> matching
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason
> > like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
> > >>>> given
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that
> will
> > >>>>> notify
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no
> issues
> > >>>>> keeping
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> PRs
> > >>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
> > >>>> failed
> > >>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an
> individual
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
> > >>>>> regular
> > >>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
> > >> offline.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on
> > existing
> > >>>>> PRs
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to
> > be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the
> > >> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the
> > >> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to
> > put
> > >>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build
> that
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>> checks
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE
> in
> > >>>>> public?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >> vrozov@apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
> > >>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will
> it
> > be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
> > >>>> candidate?
> > >>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less
> > time
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be
> > taken
> > >>>>> (as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
> > >>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> > >>>>> available,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency
> > >> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We
> > can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need
> to
> > >>>> fail
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There
> > is
> > >>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for
> > addressing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing
> anyone
> > >>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring
> > scenario,
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
> > >> severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and
> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI
> build?
> > >> Why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build
> and
> > >>>> does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set
> > >> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the
> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that
> "anyone"
> > >>>> does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> > >>>>> contributor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there
> is a
> > >>>>> severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
> > >>>>> project,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being
> > in
> > >> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated
> before
> > >> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
> > >>>> policies
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't
> see
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that
> > are
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs
> > are
> > >>>>> going
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not
> confident
> > we
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently.
> It
> > >> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till
> > build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is
> same
> > >>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual
> contributions,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and
> will
> > >> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their
> > contribution.
> > >>>> It
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
> > >>>> members
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part
> > of a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be
> resolved
> > >> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
> > >>>> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle.
> > Unit
> > >>>>> test?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit
> tests
> > >> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
> > >>>> similar
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and
> rely
> > >>>> on a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build
> fails
> > >> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another
> PR
> > >> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any
> > other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we
> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would
> fall
> > >> in
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that.
> > There
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be
> > handled
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an
> > independent
> > >>>> job
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new
> CVEs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could
> > >> even
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick
> approach
> > >>>>> (carrot
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>> vrozov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
> > >>>>> discussed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until
> a
> > >> fix
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become
> > available
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which
> case,
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that
> > choice
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I
> > mentioned
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it
> may
> > >> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may
> not
> > >> be
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade
> to a
> > >>>>> newer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver
> > (has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes
> > from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds,
> I
> > >>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI
> build
> > >>>>> fails,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we
> need
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
> > >> release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
> > >>>> cases
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in
> > >> adhoc
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I
> am
> > >>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> > >>>>> suggesting,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> > >>>>> experience
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may
> > be a
> > >>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
> > >> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be
> fixed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for
> the
> > >>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
> > >>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
> > >>>> affect
> > >>>>> us
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of
> functionality
> > >>>>> *and*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade
> > requires
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major
> version
> > >> of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an
> > exception
> > >>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting
> instead
> > >> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be
> > to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
> > >> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure.
> Is
> > >>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing
> or
> > a
> > >>>>> newly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build,
> > but
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
> > >>>>> details,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks
> like
> > >>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are
> > we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated
> > build
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
> > >>>> requires
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be
> > >> fine.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
> > >>>> apex-core/pull/585
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
> > >>>>> recognize
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
> > >>>> line?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
> > >>>> community/PMC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a
> > committer.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as
> important
> > >> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis.
> > But
> > >> I
> > >>>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any
> > material
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the
> > lines
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit
> > and
> > >>>>> cost
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit
> test,
> > >>>>> severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
> > >>>> (except
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI
> build
> > >> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it
> > >> fails
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't
> > want
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit
> analysis".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative
> > way
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

If the PR introduces a CVE by all means lets fail it initally and later
look at whitelisting it if needed. Why fail all PRs that haven't caused the
problem. What happens when there are no PRs in a given period, wouldn't it
be better to know above crtiical CVEs (that this proposal is trying to
address) sooner than wait till some random PR is raised. What if there are
no PRs for a month. I think it makes sense to have a separate build that
will catch these errors.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than agreed
> is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?


> - The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a
> violation is detected
> - A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by creating
> the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
> - The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist file or
> the build break
> - The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA ticket
> creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
> - whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given here
> https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/suppression.html
> - subsequent PR update should no longer break the build
> - there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be addressed in the
> subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project modules
> that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.
>
>
> Regards
> Ananth
>
> > On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory
> release
> > step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these,
> detection
> > of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those
> will
> > work even if there are no PRs.
> >
> >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a
> “whitelisting”
> >> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review
> >> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
> >>
> >> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a
> >> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt
> slipping
> >> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I
> >> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and
> would
> >> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
> >>
> >> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE
> listings
> >> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases progressed.
> >> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
> >> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
> >> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> .
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ananth
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
> >>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> >>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic
> measures.
> >>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
> >> getting
> >>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can
> >> have
> >>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
> >>>
> >>> Sanjay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will
> >> be
> >>>> interested fixing the issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
> >> pre-existing,
> >>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the
> >> next
> >>>> release?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
> >> merging
> >>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
> >>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or
> >> not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
> >>>>> prevent
> >>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort
> is
> >>>>>>> needed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check
> >> needs
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right
> >> place
> >>>>>> already, IMO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> >>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the
> issue
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal
> with
> >>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> >>>>> additional
> >>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time
> it
> >>>> was
> >>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not
> static.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is
> valuable
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
> >>>>> notifies
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> interested parties.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
> >>>> active
> >>>>>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
> >>>>> point.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
> >>>>> control
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> >>>>> infrastructure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> team
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex
> builds.
> >>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with
> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
> >>>>> proposal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> While
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
> >>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the
> >> same.
> >>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
> >>>> nothing
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a
> PR
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
> >>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
> >>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how
> it
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced.
> For
> >>>>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
> >>>>>>>>>>> important
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
> >>>> employer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
> >> vendor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community
> >> does
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
> >>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you
> as
> >> a
> >>>>> PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider
> -1
> >>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
> >>>> "stick"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that
> will
> >>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
> >>>> will
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some
> >> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is
> similar
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that
> premise.
> >> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> matching
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason
> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
> >>>> given
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
> >>>>> notify
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
> >>>>> keeping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
> >>>> failed
> >>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
> >>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
> >>>>> regular
> >>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
> >> offline.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on
> existing
> >>>>> PRs
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
> >>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the
> >> only
> >>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the
> >> build
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to
> put
> >>>>>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
> >>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>> checks
> >>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
> >>>>> public?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> vrozov@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
> >>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
> >>>> candidate?
> >>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less
> time
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be
> taken
> >>>>> (as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
> >>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> >>>>> available,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency
> >> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We
> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
> >>>> fail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There
> is
> >>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for
> addressing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
> >>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring
> scenario,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
> >> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build?
> >> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
> >>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set
> >> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
> >>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> >>>>> contributor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
> >>>>> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
> >>>>> project,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being
> in
> >> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
> >>>> policies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that
> are
> >>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs
> are
> >>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident
> we
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till
> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
> >>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will
> >> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their
> contribution.
> >>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
> >>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part
> of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved
> >> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
> >>>> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle.
> Unit
> >>>>> test?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
> >>>> similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
> >>>> on a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any
> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall
> >> in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that.
> There
> >>>> is
> >>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be
> handled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an
> independent
> >>>> job
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could
> >> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
> >>>>> (carrot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>> vrozov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
> >>>>> discussed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a
> >> fix
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become
> available
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that
> choice
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I
> mentioned
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may
> >> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not
> >> be
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
> >>>>> newer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver
> (has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes
> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
> >>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
> >>>>> fails,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
> >> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
> >>>> cases
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in
> >> adhoc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
> >>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> >>>>> suggesting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> >>>>> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may
> be a
> >>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
> >> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
> >>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
> >>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
> >>>> affect
> >>>>> us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
> >>>>> *and*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade
> requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version
> >> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an
> exception
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
> >> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
> >>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or
> a
> >>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build,
> but
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
> >>>>> details,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
> >>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are
> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated
> build
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
> >>>> requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be
> >> fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
> >>>> apex-core/pull/585
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
> >>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
> >>>> line?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
> >>>> community/PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a
> committer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis.
> But
> >> I
> >>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any
> material
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the
> lines
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit
> and
> >>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
> >>>>> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
> >>>> (except
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it
> >> fails
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't
> want
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative
> way
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>]

Only the first PR should be broken if cve with a higher score than agreed is introduced .Once you whitelist subsequent builds will not fail?

- The dependency check plugin is enabled to fail/break the build if a violation is detected
- A PR introducing a risk will either “acknowledge” the cve by creating the whitelist entry as part of the process or will break the build
- The reviewer/s would notice either the changes to the whitelist file or the build break
- The review process would agree upon the approach and ensure JIRA ticket creation or question why an alternative cannot be used
- whitelist would be maintained in a suppressions file example given here https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/general/suppression.html
- subsequent PR update should no longer break the build 
- there is a list of JIRA items for cve which needs to be addressed in the subsequent releases as well as a set of artefacts in the project modules that summarise the community’s awareness of the issue.


Regards
Ananth

> On 3 Nov 2017, at 8:38 am, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> 
> The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory release
> step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these, detection
> of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those will
> work even if there are no PRs.
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a “whitelisting”
>> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review
>> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
>> 
>> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a
>> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt slipping
>> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I
>> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and would
>> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
>> 
>> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE listings
>> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases progressed.
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
>> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
>> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> .
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ananth
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
>>> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
>>> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
>>> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
>> getting
>>> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can
>> have
>>> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
>>> 
>>> Sanjay
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will
>> be
>>>> interested fixing the issues.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
>> pre-existing,
>>>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the
>> next
>>>> release?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
>> merging
>>>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
>>>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or
>> not.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
>>>> the
>>>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check
>> needs
>>>>> to
>>>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right
>> place
>>>>>> already, IMO.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>>>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>>>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
>>>>> additional
>>>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
>>>> was
>>>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
>>>>> notifies
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
>>>> active
>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>>>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the
>> same.
>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
>>>> nothing
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
>>>> employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
>> vendor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community
>> does
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as
>> a
>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
>>>> "stick"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some
>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise.
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
>>>>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
>>>> given
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
>>>>> notify
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
>>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
>> offline.
>>>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the
>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the
>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
>>>>> public?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
>>>> candidate?
>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
>>>>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>>>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency
>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build?
>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set
>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>>>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in
>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
>>>> policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will
>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved
>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
>>>>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall
>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
>>>> is
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
>>>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could
>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
>>>>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a
>> fix
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may
>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not
>> be
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
>>>>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
>>>> cases
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in
>> adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>>>>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
>>>> affect
>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
>>>>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version
>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
>>>>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be
>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
>>>> apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
>>>> line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
>>>> community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But
>> I
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
>>>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
>>>> (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it
>> fails
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

The question is which build? We can definitely make it a mandatory release
step and also have nightly builds that are meant for just these, detection
of CVEs and even possible infra changes that might break tests. Those will
work even if there are no PRs.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ananth G <an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a “whitelisting”
> configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review
> process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ).
>
> The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a
> resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt slipping
> without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I
> believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and would
> need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others).
>
> On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE listings
> which the spark community has taken care of as the releases progressed.
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-
> 45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/
> vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> .
>
> Regards,
> Ananth
>
>
> > On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >
> > I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
> > Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> > contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
> > If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g.
> getting
> > contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can
> have
> > the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
> >
> > Sanjay
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will
> be
> >> interested fixing the issues.
> >>
> >> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as
> pre-existing,
> >> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the
> next
> >> release?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on
> merging
> >>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
> >>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or
> not.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
> >>> prevent
> >>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
> >>>>> needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
> >> the
> >>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check
> needs
> >>> to
> >>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right
> place
> >>>> already, IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> >>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
> >>> when
> >>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
> >>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> >>> additional
> >>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
> >> was
> >>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
> >>> but
> >>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
> >>> notifies
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> interested parties.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
> >> active
> >>>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
> >>> point.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
> >>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
> >>> control
> >>>>>>>>>>> and do
> >>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> >>> infrastructure
> >>>>>>>>>>> team
> >>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
> >> The
> >>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
> >>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
> >>> proposal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> While
> >>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
> >> changes
> >>>>>>>>>> maintain
> >>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the
> same.
> >>> In
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
> >> nothing
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>>> bringing
> >>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
> >>> another
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
> >> them
> >>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>> different.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
> >>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
> >>> don't
> >>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
> >>>>>>>>> important
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
> >>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
> >> employer
> >>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that
> vendor
> >>>>>>>>>>> priority,
> >>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community
> does
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
> >>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as
> a
> >>> PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
> >>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> >>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
> >>>>>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
> >> "stick"
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
> >>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
> >>>>>>>>>> contributing
> >>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
> >> will
> >>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some
> other
> >>>>>>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise.
> I
> >>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
> >>>>>>>>>> matching
> >>>>>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
> >>>>>>>>>> merging a
> >>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
> >> given
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
> >>> notify
> >>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
> >>> keeping
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
> >> failed
> >>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
> >>>>>>>>> contributor.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
> >>> regular
> >>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo
> offline.
> >>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
> >>> PRs
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
> >>>>>>>>> reviewed
> >>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the
> only
> >>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the
> build
> >>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
> >>>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
> >> only
> >>>>>>>>> checks
> >>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
> >>> public?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
> >>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
> >> candidate?
> >>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
> >>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
> >>> (as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
> >>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> >>> available,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency
> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
> >> fail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
> >> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
> >> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
> >>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with
> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build?
> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
> >> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set
> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
> >> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> >>> contributor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
> >>> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
> >>> project,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in
> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before
> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
> >> policies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
> >> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
> >>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It
> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
> >> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will
> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
> >> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
> >> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved
> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
> >> explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
> >>> test?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests
> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
> >> similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
> >> on a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR
> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall
> in
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
> >> is
> >>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
> >>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
> >> job
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could
> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
> >>> (carrot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>> vrozov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
> >>> discussed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a
> fix
> >>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not
> be
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
> >>> newer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
> >> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
> >>> fails,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the
> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
> >> cases
> >>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in
> adhoc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
> >> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> >>> suggesting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> >>> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
> >>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an
> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
> >> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
> >> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
> >> affect
> >>> us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
> >>> *and*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version
> of
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
> >>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an
> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
> >>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
> >>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
> >>> details,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
> >> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
> >> requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be
> fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
> >> apex-core/pull/585
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
> >>> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
> >> line?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
> >> community/PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important
> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But
> I
> >>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
> >>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
> >>> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
> >> (except
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build
> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it
> fails
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>]

My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a “whitelisting” configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ). 

The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking the build for me is tech debt slipping without anyones notice.  Fixing the JIRA is a hygiene process which I believe cannot take a back burner as compared contributor welfare and would need commitments from the contributor ( and/or others). 

On a related note, looking at apache spark, there seems to be CVE listings which the spark community has taken care of as the releases progressed. http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html <http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-38954/Apache-Spark.html> . 

Regards,
Ananth


> On 3 Nov 2017, at 4:48 am, Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> 
> I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
> Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
> contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
> If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g. getting
> contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can have
> the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.
> 
> Sanjay
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will be
>> interested fixing the issues.
>> 
>> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as pre-existing,
>> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the next
>> release?
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
>>> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
>>> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
>>> prevent
>>>>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
>>>>> needed.
>>>>> 
>>>> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
>> the
>>>> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs
>>> to
>>>> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
>>>> already, IMO.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>>>>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
>>> when
>>>>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>>>>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
>>> additional
>>>>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>>>> 
>>>> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
>> was
>>>> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
>>> but
>>>>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
>>> notifies
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
>> active
>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
>>> point.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
>> changes
>>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same.
>>> In
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
>> nothing
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
>> is
>>>>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
>> them
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
>> is
>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
>> employer
>>>>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a
>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
>> "stick"
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
>> will
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
>> to
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
>>>>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
>> given
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
>>> notify
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
>> failed
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
>>> regular
>>>>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>>>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>>>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
>> only
>>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
>>> public?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
>> candidate?
>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
>>> (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
>>> contributor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
>> policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
>>> test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
>> is
>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
>> job
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
>>> (carrot
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>> vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
>>> fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
>> cases
>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
>>> suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
>> affect
>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
>>> *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
>>> details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
>> apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
>> line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
>> community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I
>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
>>> severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
>> (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Sanjay Pujare <sa...@datatorrent.com>]

I like this suggestion. Blocking the PR is too drastic. I also second
Pramod's point (made elsewhere) that we should try to encourage
contribution instead of discouraging it by resorting to drastic measures.
If you institute drastic measures to achieve a desired effect (e.g. getting
contributors to look into CVEs and build infrastructure issues) it can have
the opposite effect of contributors losing interest.

Sanjay



On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:

> Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will be
> interested fixing the issues.
>
> Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as pre-existing,
> we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the next
> release?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
> > the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
> > discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
> > prevent
> > >>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> > >>>
> > >>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
> > >> needed.
> > >>
> > > After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move
> the
> > > check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs
> > to
> > > be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
> > > already, IMO.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> > >>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
> > when
> > >>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
> > >>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> > >>>
> > >>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> > additional
> > >> checks that verify the PR better.
> > >>
> > > Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it
> was
> > > introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thank you,
> > >>>
> > >>> Vlad
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
> > but
> > >>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
> > notifies
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> interested parties.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the
> active
> > >>>> PRs
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
> > point.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
> > >>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
> > control
> > >>>>>>>> and do
> > >>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> > infrastructure
> > >>>>>>>> team
> > >>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds.
> The
> > >>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
> > >>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
> > proposal.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> While
> > >>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the
> changes
> > >>>>>>> maintain
> > >>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same.
> > In
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have
> nothing
> > to
> > >>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR
> is
> > >>>>>>> bringing
> > >>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
> > another
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> on
> > >>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of
> them
> > >>>>>> was
> > >>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it
> is
> > >>>>>> different.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
> > >>>>>> newly
> > >>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
> > don't
> > >>>>>> think
> > >>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
> > >>>>>> important
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
> > >>>>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an
> employer
> > >>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
> > >>>>>>>> priority,
> > >>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does
> > not
> > >>>>>>>> have a
> > >>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
> > there
> > >>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a
> > PMC
> > >>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
> > as a
> > >>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> > >>>>>>>> contributor,
> > >>>>>>>> it is
> > >>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a
> "stick"
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
> > make
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> people
> > >>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
> > >>>>>>> contributing
> > >>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome
> will
> > be
> > >>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
> > >>>>>>> issue.
> > >>>>>>> In
> > >>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar
> to
> > >>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
> > >>>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
> > >>>>>>> matching
> > >>>>>>> CVE
> > >>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
> > >>>>>>> merging a
> > >>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you
> given
> > a
> > >>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
> > notify
> > >>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>> CVEs.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
> > keeping
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> PRs
> > >>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a
> failed
> > >>>>>> build
> > >>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
> > >>>>>> contributor.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
> > regular
> > >>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
> > >>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
> > PRs
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
> > >>>>>> reviewed
> > >>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
> > >>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
> > >>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
> > >>>>>> effort
> > >>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that
> only
> > >>>>>> checks
> > >>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
> > public?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
> >
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
> > existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release
> candidate?
> > In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
> > for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
> > (as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> member
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
> > security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> going
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> > available,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> found
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to
> fail
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is
> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>> set
> > >>>>>>>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
> > >>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> > >>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > >>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone
> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>> looking
> > >>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
> > but
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> think
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
> > >>>>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
> > >>>>>>>>>> require
> > >>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and
> does
> > >>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> affect
> > >>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
> > >>>>>>>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone"
> does
> > >>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> mean
> > >>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> > contributor
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
> > severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
> > project,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> including
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without
> policies
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> put
> > >>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are
> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> cause
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
> > going
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
> > have
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
> > >>>>>>>>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same
> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> project
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
> > >>>>>>>>>> provide
> > >>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution.
> It
> > >>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> > >>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community
> members
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> those
> > >>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> > >>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> > >>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
> > >>>>>>>>>> community,
> > >>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
> > >>>>>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>>>>> take
> > >>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible
> explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>> that I
> > >>>>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> > >>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> > >>>>>>>>>> why
> > >>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
> > test?
> > >>>>>>>>>> Should
> > >>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
> > >>>>>>>>>> well?
> > >>>>>>>>>> What
> > >>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail
> similar
> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely
> on a
> > >>>>>>>>>> committer
> > >>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
> > >>>>>>>>>> whatever
> > >>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
> > >>>>>>>>>> well,
> > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
> > >>>>>>>>>> reasons
> > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
> > >>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There
> is
> > no
> > >>>>>>>>> reason
> > >>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
> > >>>>>>>>> separtely
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent
> job
> > >>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
> > >>>>>>>>> discovered
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
> > >>>>>>>>> reduce
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
> > (carrot
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > vrozov@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
> > discussed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix
> > is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available
> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case,
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
> > newer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I
> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
> > fails,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other
> cases
> > it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am
> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> > suggesting,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> > experience
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
> > new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the
> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if
> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt
> affect
> > us
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
> > *and*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
> > like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
> > there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
> > newly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
> > details,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like
> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build
> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that
> requires
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/
> apex-core/pull/585
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
> > recognize
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code
> line?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the
> community/PMC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I
> > get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
> > cost
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
> > severe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small
> (except
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails
> > and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want
> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way
> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> >
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>]

Considering typical behavior, unless the CI build fails, very few will be
interested fixing the issues.

Perhaps if after a CI failure the issue can be identified as pre-existing,
we can whitelist and create a JIRA that must be addressed prior to the next
release?


On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
> the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
> discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to
> prevent
> >>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
> >>>
> >>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
> >> needed.
> >>
> > After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move the
> > check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs
> to
> > be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
> > already, IMO.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> >>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue
> when
> >>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
> >>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
> >>>
> >>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding
> additional
> >> checks that verify the PR better.
> >>
> > Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it was
> > introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Vlad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable
> but
> >>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that
> notifies
> >>>> the
> >>>> interested parties.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active
> >>>> PRs
> >>>>
> >>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot
> point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
> >>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not
> control
> >>>>>>>> and do
> >>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache
> infrastructure
> >>>>>>>> team
> >>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
> >>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this
> proposal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While
> >>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
> >>>>>>> maintain
> >>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same.
> In
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing
> to
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
> >>>>>>> bringing
> >>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and
> another
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them
> >>>>>> was
> >>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
> >>>>>> different.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
> >>>>>> newly
> >>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I
> don't
> >>>>>> think
> >>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
> >>>>>> important
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
> >>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
> >>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
> >>>>>>>> priority,
> >>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does
> not
> >>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case
> there
> >>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a
> PMC
> >>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1
> as a
> >>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
> >>>>>>>> contributor,
> >>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick"
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>> individual contributor.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will
> make
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
> >>>>>>> contributing
> >>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will
> be
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
> >>>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to
> >>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
> >>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
> >>>>>>> matching
> >>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
> >>>>>>> merging a
> >>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given
> a
> >>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will
> notify
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> CVEs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues
> keeping
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed
> >>>>>> build
> >>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
> >>>>>> contributor.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings
> regular
> >>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
> >>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing
> PRs
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
> >>>>>> reviewed
> >>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
> >>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
> >>>>>> effort
> >>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only
> >>>>>> checks
> >>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in
> public?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an
> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
> >>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate?
> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken
> (as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>> member
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe
> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes
> available,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> found
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
> >>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no
> >>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
> >>>>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
> >>>>>>>>>>> looking
> >>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario,
> but
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
> >>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
> >>>>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does
> >>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> affect
> >>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
> >>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
> >>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does
> >>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual
> contributor
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a
> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the
> project,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> including
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the
> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> cause
> >>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are
> going
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
> >>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a
> >>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> contributors.
> >>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
> >>>>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
> >>>>>>>>>> becomes a
> >>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
> >>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
> >>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
> >>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation
> >>>>>>>>>> that I
> >>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
> >>>>>>>>>> contributions,
> >>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit
> test?
> >>>>>>>>>> Should
> >>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
> >>>>>>>>>> well?
> >>>>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
> >>>>>>>>>> committer
> >>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
> >>>>>>>>>> whatever
> >>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
> >>>>>>>>>> well,
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
> >>>>>>>>>> reasons
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
> >>>>>>>>>> introduce,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in
> the
> >>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is
> no
> >>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
> >>>>>>>>> separtely
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
> >>>>>>>>> discovered
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
> >>>>>>>>> reduce
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach
> (carrot
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> vrozov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be
> discussed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix
> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a
> newer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build
> fails,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are
> suggesting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From
> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a
> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect
> us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality
> *and*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception
> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is
> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a
> newly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the
> details,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to
> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I
> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and
> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test,
> severe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

I would like to hear what others think.. at this point I am -1 on merging
the change as is that would fail all PR builds when a matching CVE is
discovered regardless of whether the PR was the cause of the CVE or not.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to prevent
>>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>>
>>> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is
>> needed.
>>
> After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move the
> check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs to
> be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right place
> already, IMO.
>
>>
>>
>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue when
>>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>>
>>> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding additional
>> checks that verify the PR better.
>>
> Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it was
> introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable but
>>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that notifies
>>>> the
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active
>>>> PRs
>>>>
>>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not control
>>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache infrastructure
>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same. In
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
>>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and another
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For
>>>>>> newly
>>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does not
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case there
>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a PMC
>>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1 as a
>>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual
>>>>>>>> contributor,
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick"
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will make
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will be
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a
>>>>>>> matching
>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given a
>>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will notify
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues keeping
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings regular
>>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing PRs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put
>>>>>> effort
>>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only
>>>>>> checks
>>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in public?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an existing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be
>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate? In
>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken (as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe security
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes available,
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with
>>>>>>>>>>>> newly
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no
>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario, but
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check
>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual contributor
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a severe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the project,
>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are going
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we have
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build
>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions,
>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation
>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit test?
>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as
>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as
>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other
>>>>>>>>>> reasons
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in the
>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is no
>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach (carrot
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test, severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

On 11/1/17 11:39, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to prevent
>> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>>
> There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is needed.
After it is added, we can discuss whether it will make sense to move the 
check to the newly created build. Even if one is added, the check needs 
to be present in the CI builds that verify PR, so it is in the right 
place already, IMO.
>
>
>> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
>> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue when
>> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
>> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>>
> Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding additional
> checks that verify the PR better.
Right and it would be much better to catch the problem at the time it 
was introduced, but Category X list (as well as known CVE) is not static.
>
>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>
>>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable but
>>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that notifies
>>> the
>>> interested parties.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active PRs
>>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot point.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an existing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not control
>>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache infrastructure
>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> While
>>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same. In
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and another
>>>>> on
>>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them was
>>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
>>>>> different.
>>>>>
>>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For newly
>>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is important
>>>>> to
>>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does not
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case there
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a PMC
>>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1 as a
>>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual contributor,
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick" for
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>>> contributing
>>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will be
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>> In
>>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I don't
>>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a matching
>>>>>> CVE
>>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>>> merging a
>>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given a
>>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will notify
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues keeping
>>>>> PRs
>>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed
>>>>> build
>>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings regular
>>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing PRs
>>>>> and
>>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>>> reviewed
>>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build issue
>>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put effort
>>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only
>>>>> checks
>>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in public?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an existing
>>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be better
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate? In
>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time for
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken (as a
>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe security
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes available,
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with newly
>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can always
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no set
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario, but I
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check existing
>>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does not
>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time for a
>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does not
>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual contributor
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a severe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the project,
>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
>>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the need
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not the
>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are going
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we have
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is also
>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build issues
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions, project
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members and
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation
>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit test?
>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as well?
>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar to
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as well,
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other reasons
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is no
>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job on
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach (carrot
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be discussed
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a newer
>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases it
>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also open
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From experience
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is there a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line? Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test, severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to prevent
> new dependencies with CVE being introduced.
>

There isn't one today but one could be added. What kind of effort is needed.


>
> Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X
> introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue when
> such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with
> removing/fixing those dependencies.
>

Those were directly introduced in PRs. I am not against adding additional
checks that verify the PR better.


>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable but
>> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that notifies
>> the
>> interested parties.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active PRs
>>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot point.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an existing
>>>>>
>>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not control
>>>>>> and do
>>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache infrastructure
>>>>>> team
>>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>> While
>>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
>>>>> maintain
>>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same. In
>>>>> this
>>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing to
>>>>> do
>>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
>>>>> bringing
>>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and another
>>>> on
>>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them was
>>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For newly
>>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I don't
>>>> think
>>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is important
>>>> to
>>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until
>>>>> dependency
>>>>>
>>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>>> priority,
>>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does not
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case there
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a PMC
>>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1 as a
>>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual contributor,
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick" for
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will make
>>>>>>
>>>>> people
>>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>>> contributing
>>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will be
>>>>> or
>>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other
>>>>> issue.
>>>>> In
>>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to
>>>>> build
>>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I don't
>>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a matching
>>>>> CVE
>>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like
>>>>> merging a
>>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given a
>>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will notify
>>>>> about
>>>>> CVEs.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues keeping
>>>> PRs
>>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed
>>>> build
>>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual
>>>> contributor.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings regular
>>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing PRs
>>>> and
>>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be
>>>> reviewed
>>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build issue
>>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>>
>>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put effort
>>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only
>>>> checks
>>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in public?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be better
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate? In
>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time for
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken (as a
>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe security
>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes available,
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with newly
>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can always
>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no set
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing
>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario, but I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check existing
>>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why
>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does not
>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time for a
>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does not
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual contributor
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a severe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the project,
>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a
>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as
>>>>>>>>>> well. A
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the need
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not the
>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are going
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we have
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is also
>>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build issues
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions, project
>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members and
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that
>>>>>>>> responsibility,
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation
>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate
>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit test?
>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as well?
>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar to
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as well,
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other reasons
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't
>>>>>>>> introduce,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in the
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is no
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled
>>>>>>> separtely
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job on
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs
>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even
>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach (carrot
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be discussed
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of what
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the CVE
>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be the
>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a newer
>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has
>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build fails,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases it
>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc
>>>>>>>>>>> fashion
>>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also open
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are suggesting,
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From experience
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a new
>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue and
>>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect us
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is there a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line? Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test, severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

There is no independent build and the check is still necessary to 
prevent new dependencies with CVE being introduced.

Look at Malhar 3.8.0 thread. There are libraries from Category X 
introduced as a dependency, so now instead of dealing with the issue 
when such dependencies were introduced, somebody else needs to deal with 
removing/fixing those dependencies.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 11/1/17 11:21, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable but
> would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that notifies the
> interested parties.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active PRs
>> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot point.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an existing
>>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not control
>>>>> and do
>>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache infrastructure team
>>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The same
>>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this proposal.
>>>> While
>>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
>>>> maintain
>>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same. In this
>>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing to do
>>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
>>>> bringing
>>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>>
>>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and another on
>>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them was
>>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
>>> different.
>>>
>>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For newly
>>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I don't think
>>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is important to
>>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until dependency
>>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>>> priority,
>>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does not
>>>>> have a
>>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case there is a
>>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a PMC
>>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1 as a
>>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual contributor,
>>>>> it is
>>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick" for
>>>>> an
>>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>>
>>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will make
>>>> people
>>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>>> contributing
>>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will be or
>>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other issue.
>>>> In
>>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to build
>>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I don't
>>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a matching
>>>> CVE
>>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like merging a
>>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given a
>>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will notify
>>>> about
>>>> CVEs.
>>>>
>>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues keeping PRs
>>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed build
>>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual contributor.
>>>
>>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings regular
>>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing PRs and
>>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be reviewed
>>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build issue
>>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>>
>>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put effort
>>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only checks
>>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in public?
>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be better
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate? In
>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time for the
>>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken (as a PMC
>>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe security
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes available,
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with newly
>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can always
>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
>>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no set
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing relevant
>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario, but I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check existing
>>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why require
>>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does not
>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time for a
>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does not
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual contributor and
>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a severe
>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the project,
>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a pending
>>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as well. A
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies that
>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not the
>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are going to
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we have the
>>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is also
>>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build issues
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a build
>>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions, project
>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not provide
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members and
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that responsibility,
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>>> community,
>>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or better
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation that I
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions,
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit test?
>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as well?
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar to
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as well,
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other reasons
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't introduce,
>>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in the same
>>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is no
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled separtely
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job on a
>>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs discovered
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even reduce
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach (carrot and
>>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be discussed on
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for the
>>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of what
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the CVE
>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be the
>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a newer
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has happened
>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build fails,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to assess
>>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release. This
>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases it may
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc fashion
>>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also open
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are suggesting, if
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From experience
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a new
>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue and
>>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there is a
>>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect us
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception like we
>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of failing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is there a
>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a newly
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the details, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to recognize a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line? Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test, severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

My original concern still remains. I think what you have is valuable but
would prefer that it be activated in an independent build that notifies the
interested parties.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> Any other concerns regarding merging the PR? By looking at the active PRs
> on the apex core the entire conversation looks to be at the moot point.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 10/30/17 18:50, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/17 17:30, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't we use unit test to make sure that PR does not break an existing
>>>> functionality? For that we use CI environment that we do not control
>>>> and do
>>>> not introduce any changes to, but for example Apache infrastructure team
>>>> may decide to upgrade Jenkins and that may impact Apex builds. The same
>>>> applies to CVE. It is there to prevent dependencies with severe
>>>> vulnerabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Infrastructure changes are quite different, IMO, from this proposal.
>>> While
>>> they are not in our control, in majority of the cases, the changes
>>> maintain
>>> compatibility so everything on top will continue to run the same. In this
>>> case a CVE will always fail all PRs, the code changes have nothing to do
>>> with introducing the CVE. I did make the exception that if a PR is
>>> bringing
>>> in the CVE yes do fail it.
>>>
>> There were just two recent changes, one on Travis CI side and another on
>> Jenkins side that caused builds for all PRs to fail and none of them was
>> caused by code changes in any of open PRs, so I don't see how it is
>> different.
>>
>> A code change may or may not have relation to CVE introduced. For newly
>> introduced dependencies, there may be known CVEs. In any case I don't think
>> it is important to differentiate how CVE is introduced, it is important to
>> eliminate dependencies with known CVEs.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no "stick" in a failed build or keeping PR open until dependency
>>>> issue is resolved or unit test failure is fixed. Unless an employer
>>>> punishes its employee for not delivering PR based on that vendor
>>>> priority,
>>>> there is no "stick". As we already discussed, the community does not
>>>> have a
>>>> deadline for a PR merge or for a release to go out. In a case there is a
>>>> problematic dependency (with CVE or category X license) you as a PMC
>>>> suppose to -1 a release (at least I will). Will you consider -1 as a
>>>> "stick"? For me, it is not about punishing an individual contributor,
>>>> it is
>>>> a priority and focus shift for the entire community, not a "stick" for
>>>> an
>>>> individual contributor.
>>>>
>>>> The stick I am referring to is failing all PRs hoping that will make
>>> people
>>> address CVEs. It's got nothing to do with an employer, people
>>> contributing
>>> to open source can't expect they can control what the outcome will be or
>>> what form it will take. You may be confusing this with some other issue.
>>> In
>>> some of the arguments, you are assuming this scenario is similar to build
>>> failures from failing unit tests and I am arguing that premise. I don't
>>> think we should bring regular development to a halt whenever a matching
>>> CVE
>>> is discovered, unless there is some other secondary reason like merging a
>>> PR will make it difficult for a CVE fix to be made. Have you given a
>>> thought to what I said about having a separate build that will notify
>>> about
>>> CVEs.
>>>
>> As I mentioned, there is no stick, no deadlines and no issues keeping PRs
>> open until builds can be verified on CI environment. Fixing a failed build
>> is a priority for the *community* not a stick for an individual contributor.
>>
>> I don't see why keeping PRs open (for whatever reason) brings regular
>> development to a halt. Nobody is going to put github repo offline.
>> Contributors may continue to open new PR, collaborate on existing PRs and
>> add more changes (and need to be patient for those changes to be reviewed
>> and accepted). The regular development will continue with the only
>> exception that the next commit to be merged must address the build issue
>> (whether it is a failed unit test or newly found CVE).
>>
>> I don't see much value in a separate build and do not plan to put effort
>> in that direction. Additionally, will not a separate build that only checks
>> for CVE will trigger your initial concern of disclosing CVE in public?
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/27/17 14:28, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/17 11:46, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you are mostly concerned regarding new CVE in an existing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dependency. Once such CVE is added to a database, will it be better
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> about it or postpone discovery till we cut release candidate? In
>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> reported only during release cycle, there is much less time for the
>>>>>>>> community to take an action and it still needs to be taken (as a PMC
>>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>>> you are responsible for preventing release with severe security
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>> out). If it is reported once the information becomes available,
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> more time to research and either upgrade the dependency with newly
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>> CVE, agree that it does not impact the project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would be the more commonly occurring scenario. We can always
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> about the CVEs because of your changes. We don't need to fail
>>>>>>> builds to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> that. I am not asking you to remove the reporting. There is no set
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a release so having less time during release for addressing relevant
>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>> does not come up. There is also nothing preventing anyone from
>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> these reports and taking action earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see why it will be more commonly occurring scenario, but I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is equally important to prevent new dependency with severe
>>>>>> vulnerabilities being introduced into the project and check existing
>>>>>> dependencies for newly discovered severe vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How will we know about CVE if it is removed from CI build? Why require
>>>>>> manual verification when it can be done during CI build and does not
>>>>>> affect
>>>>>> builds done by individual contributors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While there is no set time for a release, there is no set time for a
>>>>>> PR
>>>>>> merge as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, nothing prevents anyone from looking at the dependency
>>>>>> vulnerabilities, but there is a better chance that "anyone" does not
>>>>>> mean
>>>>>> nobody if CI build fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still do not understand why you value an individual contributor and
>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> over the community and the project itself. Once there is a severe
>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>> vulnerability, it affects everyone who cares about the project,
>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>> all contributors. I don't see a problem with a PR being in a pending
>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>> merged) open state till a build issue is resolved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a mischaracterization that you have stated before as well. A
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> project cannot grow without contributions and without policies that
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>> a supportive enviroment where that can happen, I don't see the need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>> unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions that are not the
>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>> of a problem. Everytime there is a matching CVE the PRs are going to
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> blocked till that CVE is addressed and I am not confident we have the
>>>>>>> bandwidth in the community to address this expediently. It is also
>>>>>>> inaccurate to equate this to PR not being merged till build issues
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> resolved as it derives from an assumption that CVE is same as a build
>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While project can't grow without individual contributions, project
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> result of a large number of contributions from a number of
>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>> Some of those contributors are not active anymore and will not provide
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> fixes should a vulnerability be found in their contribution. It
>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>> shared responsibility of all currently active community members and
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> who submit PR are part of the community and share that responsibility,
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> not they? If a contributor considers him/herself as part of a
>>>>>> community,
>>>>>> why he or she can't wait for the build issue to be resolved or better
>>>>>> take
>>>>>> an action on resolving the issue? The only possible explanation that I
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> is the one that I already mentioned on this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you see this as unnecessary obstacles for legitimate contributions,
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> to enforce code style, it is also unnecessary obstacle. Unit test?
>>>>>> Should
>>>>>> it be considered to be optional for a PR to pass unit tests as well?
>>>>>> What
>>>>>> if an environment change on CI side causes build to fail similar to
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> happened recently? Should we disable CI builds too and rely on a
>>>>>> committer
>>>>>> or a release manager to run unit tests?  If CI build fails for
>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>> reason, how can you be sure that if it fails for another PR as well,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they both fail for the same reason and there is no any other reasons
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> will cause a problem with a PR?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know how failing PRs because of CVE, which we don't introduce,
>>>>> don't control, no idea of and possibly unrelated would fall in the same
>>>>> bucket as unit tests. I am at a loss of words for that. There is no
>>>>> reason
>>>>> to block legitimate development for this. This can be handled separtely
>>>>> and
>>>>> in parallel. Maybe there is a way we can setup an independent job on a
>>>>> build server that runs nightly, fails if there are new CVEs discovered
>>>>> and
>>>>> sends an email out to the security or dev group. You could even reduce
>>>>> the
>>>>> CVE threshold for this. I don't believe in a stick approach (carrot and
>>>>> stick metaphor) and believe in proportional measures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 09:42, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a way to add an exception, but it needs to be discussed on
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by case basis. Note that CVEs are not published until a fix is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>> For severity 8 CVEs I expect patches to become available for the
>>>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>>>> version unless it is an obsolete version in which case, the
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> supported version is already overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should retain the ability to make that choice of what
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to upgrade rather than hard enforce it. Like I mentioned the CVE
>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> apply to us (it has happened before), even though it may be
>>>>>>>>> beneficial
>>>>>>>>> upgrade generally when its not applicable, there may not be the
>>>>>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>>>>>> in community to do the necessary changes to upgrade to a newer
>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>> especially if those dependencies don't follow semver (has happened
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> as well, remember effort with ning). My caution comes from
>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>> this situation before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see how reporting helps. If a build succeeds, I don't
>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anyone to look into the report, it is only when CI build fails,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>>>> and reviewers look into the details.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can add a mandatory step during release that we need to assess
>>>>>>>>>> CVEs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> matching this criteria before proceeding with the release. This
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>> up requiring upgrade of some dependencies and in other cases it may
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> needed. This assessment can also happen more often in adhoc fashion
>>>>>>>>> offline
>>>>>>>>> before release based upon interest from community. I am also open
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>> it mandatory with every PR, in future, like you are suggesting, if
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> sufficient uptake in community on these issues. From experience
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> there currently and hence I don't want to do this now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO, it does not matter how CVE is introduced. It may be a new
>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with an existing CVE or it can be a new CVE for an existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>> both cases, dependency with the CVE needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In one case the PR is not directly responsible for the issue and
>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> should avoid penalizing them or block them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/17 11:58, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks that sounds mostly fine except what happens if there is a
>>>>>>>>>> cve
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> matching that severity in a dependency but it doesnt affect us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> let's say we don't exercise that part of functionality *and*
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>> fix available or there is a fix but the upgrade requires
>>>>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>> (for example if we need to move to a new major version of the
>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> something like that). Is there a way to add an exception like we
>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle in the interim. How about reporting instead of failing
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> builds. One of the steps in release process could be to
>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> reports before proceeding with the release. If a PR introduces
>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>> cves
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of adding a new dependency or changing an existing
>>>>>>>>>>> version,
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> would be of interest and can be subject to failure. Is there a
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A CVE (should there be a vulnerability in existing or a newly
>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dependency) will not be exposed during the CI build, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if the CVE has severity 8 or above. To get the details, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to run dependency check manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/17 16:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion on this but looks like there was
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Can you summarize what your PR does? Are we
>>>>>>>>>>>> disclosing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual vulnerabilities as part of the automated build for every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a no-no for me. If it is something that requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example as part of a release build, that would be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/585 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> APEXCORE-790.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/17 09:35, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect anything else from the community to recognize a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution other than committing it to the code line? Once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steady flow of quality contributions, the community/PMC will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor by making that contributor a committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/17 13:05, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a vendor too, quality ought to be as important as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we disagree on the cost benefit analysis. But I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative incentive" I didn't imply any material incentive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gift card would be nice :-)) but more along the lines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do to recognize such contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vrozov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we have a different view on the benefit and cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me the benefit of fixing CI build, flaky unit test, severe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge for the community and is possibly small (except for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues) for a vendor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By "creative" I hope you don't mean that other community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and customers send a contributor a gift cards to compensate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :). For me PR that is blocked on a failed CI build is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incentive for a contributor to look into why it fails and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/17 23:58, Sanjay Pujare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to speak for others and I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious answer could be "cost-benefit analysis".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case we should come up with a creative way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "incentivize"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>