Note that all the opinions I express are my own. I do
not speak for the Platform.
My opinions reflect the reality of the great many projects
supported by a handful of committers (or even a single committer)
doing everything on a for-free basis. While the focus here right
now may be on the Platform's set of projects, that focus will
(must?) eventually broaden to include all of SimRel (and
effectively all Eclipse Projects and all their dependencies)
because security problems can come from anywhere and from any
Project. I would hope that most projects could produce a new
build on short noticed, but I know that even that's unfortunately
(and shockingly) not the case. Certainly the Platform is more
than capable of producing a build on a moment's notice, and such a
build (p2 update site) could be termed an "emergency release", but
I think you probably are using that term to mean something much
more.
In any case, please don't get me wrong. I fully share the
Foundation's concerns about loss of reputation and the
Foundation's goal of being an industry leader. The reality though
is that the Foundation has a budget while Projects don't.
I believe that probably I speak for most of the Platform
committers when I say that I prefer this discussion on a GitHub
issue or GitHub discussion. Likely no one wants a long
disconnected set of email threads on such a topic, and after the
fact, someone will likely want a single location with a cohesive
thread of discussion rather than a disjointed mailing list
archive. I wonder if the focus on the Platform is a bit of the
case of looking for a lost set of keys under the streetlight
because the lighting is best for finding lost things there. It's
just as likely that the keys will be lost in some dark corner, or
deep in the grass. But I suppose one has to start looking
somewhere. This issue is also very likely of interest to the IDE
Working Group, which also has a budget...
Regards,
Ed
On 24.07.2023 09:25, Marta Rybczynska
wrote:
Hello Ed and others,
The policy of EF reflects the reality in the industry. 90
days is the typical time security researchers agree to wait.
However, this is not set in stone. It might happen that a
researcher says they have a presentation accepted on a
conference and they will present the vulnerability at that
specific date. Or, a researcher who is following a different
calendar, like 30 days. Or if there is an active exploitation
of a vulnerability.
In such cases, if the project does not have a way to
produce an emergency release in such cases, this could be bad
for their users (and their reputation...). This is the risk I
note in this case (EF policy is secondary here).
Also, this is also always a project's call to decide to do
a security release or not. Usually, for a minor vulnerability,
it is OK to wait. For a major one, it's another story.
It might be useful to start a discussion about
cross-project security releases (we call it coordinated
disclosure in the security world, btw), do I read it correctly
that you prefer a GitHub issue instead of a mailing list post?
With respect to distribution of a resolution, I do not
see the use of, nor definition of, the term "security
release" but rather only the following, where it simply
mentions using "normal distribution channels" at a
minimum:
In general, all changes are normally made available for
distribution within a day via integration builds, and,
as you've noted, releases are normally made available
for distribution on a quarterly basis.
Also highly relevant, is that the simultaneous release,
the mostly widely used distribution channel, is also
normally available quarterly. SimRel integration
(staging) builds are available daily with new content
available as contributed by the participating projects:
Asking for special out-of-band "security releases" is
asking for a lot from the Platform project. Too much in
my personal opinion, but everyone is entitled to
an option. Moreover, I assume this same policy, and
expectation, applies uniformly for all projects where
that expectation is probably significantly less
realistic. It would seem better to me to try to work
(as much as possible) within the bounds of the existing
processes and normal distribution channels.
General cross-cutting discussions or issues can be
hosted here:
On 18.07.2023 18:03, Marta Rybczynska via
platform-dev wrote:
Hello,
Eclipse platform has
been releasing every three month for some time. I've
been recently working on clarifying security
processes and I could not find a description how the Eclipse Platform
handles a security release.
Would a security fix need to wait for next
3-month release? This could be in conflict with the 90
days vulnerability release policy. Consider this
scenario:
- A vulnerability is reported two weeks before
the release and the team needs some time to prepare
a fix.
- The fix is ready one month after the release
- 90 days will come two weeks BEFORE the next
release
Releasing a vulnerability information to the
public without a release fixing it is against best
practices and it would be beneficial to avoid it.
Do you consider running a separate bugfix
release?
Could you please point me to
documentation/discussions on how you do handle or
would handle such a situation?