cvs commit: ports/security/portaudit-db/database portaudit.txt portaudit.xlist portaudit.xml

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:

> [Moving to freebsd-vuxml ... oh how I wish Bcc worked so that people on
>  the other list knew where this went :-) ]
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 07:46:16PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>> When you can live with the dummy text produced by my perl script
>> ("Please contact the FreeBSD Security Team for more information.") and
>> we can make the `discovered' entry optional, fine with me. I can write
>> a `make entry' perl script that parses a form an generates a template
>> entry, send-pr like.
>
> FWIW, this sounds fine by me, except about the <discovered> part.
> I see your point about it though... it may be dangerous to have a
> bogus value (like the date of entry), because it may not get corrected
> later.  But I don't want it optional, so that it is not forgotten.
> Perhaps we need the possiblity of marking something explicitly
> <unspecified> for such occassions ...
>
> In the mean time, could the date of entry be used?  And perhaps a
> comment could be a workaround for now, something like
>
>    <discovered>2004-08-17</discovered> <!-- XXX please correct --->
>
> Ugly, I know, but the current format wasn't made for
> works-in-progress.  Maybe we can make some options for that...

epoch 0? 1970-01-01? Or the date vuxml was announced? This would be 
easier to find than XXX, especially in a rendered version. Or just leave 
the entry empty.

Any constant will do, it could be easily rendered to `unknown'. I find a 
non-constant value (date of entry) a bad choice it is more difficult to 
test against (and could be correct).

>>> In place of arguing, start forging some code to check the base
>>> system against the security listings in vuln.xml.
>>
>> portaudit could easily do that. The only thing useful here would be to
>> use __FreeBSD_versions, so we can check -STABLE and -CURRENT too. Or 
>> can
>> I map the version numbers somehow? I added __FreeBSD_versions in the
>> last entry (multiple CVS vulnerabilities), but they are commented out
>> since I don't know what the right syntax is.
>
> By way of example, I've been using FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE-p1 == 4.7_1.  I'm
> not entirely satisfied and I am open to suggestions.  This part has been
> ill-specified. :-(

Ehm, __FreeBSD_version? What's bad with that? Documented in the Porters 
Handbook, and to find out.

-Oliver