GNU social JP
  • FAQ
  • Login
GNU social JPは日本のGNU socialサーバーです。
Usage/ToS/admin/test/Pleroma FE
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Featured
    • Popular
    • People

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice

  1. Embed this notice
    Red Rozenglass (rozenglass@fedi.dreamscape.link)'s status on Thursday, 17-Apr-2025 04:35:32 JSTRed RozenglassRed Rozenglass
    in reply to
    • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
    • Wolf480pl
    • Tulip ?️‍⚧️
    @lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me @domi@donotsta.re @wolf480pl@mstdn.io I'm not saying someone must review the CVEs, I'm saying someone must ensure they're fixed in important running systems. The easy bar I'm talking about is doing "apt upgrade" on Debian stable, or "npm audit fix" in a Node project.

    CVEs are not for me to review in detail, they are a communication system for the developers and upstream maintainers, who write them, to notify me (downstream), and perhaps tell me their expert opinion about the issue, to help prioritize my work. I assume package X maintainers know their package well enough, so when my RSS feed says they published a severity 9 remote-execution CVE, I immediately contact every client I have to coordinate sessions for reviewing their situation and whether it affects them, and to coordinate upgrading their package X installations as needed. But if a CVE has a severity 2 of barely anything, I don't have to even look at it until next maintenance cycle, if ever really. I just assume it will be fixed next time I upgrade X whenever. It is not a perfect system, a severity 2 might actually cause damage, and a severity 9 might actually not apply in a specific context. But it is an important tool nonetheless.

    In this context though, I don't care much about the US gov CVE central DBs. Those are, like I said, are just to scare business people. What I care about is upstream security advisories, published when important issues crop up, I RSS/Atom/curl-script subscribe to them, to get notifications when things require my attention. Automatic scanners can be helpful though, when we get thrown into a project that doesn't have due process in place already, and automatic scanners depend on said central CVE database sometimes.

    As for the Linux Kernel, no, it does not need thousands of CVEs for a few weeks. There are a few hundreds published per-year[1], most years, and a much smaller number demand immediate emergency attention. Still, for my current clients and personal needs at least, listening for Linux Kernel advisories from Debian / Gentoo / Slackware is enough. Those come usually in batches, unless something major came up.

    https://www.cvedetails.com/product/47/Linux-Linux-Kernel.html?vendor_id=33

    In conversation2 months ago from fedi.dreamscape.linkpermalink

    Attachments

    1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
      Linux Linux Kernel security vulnerabilities, CVEs, versions and CVE reports
      Linux Linux Kernel security vulnerabilities, CVEs, exploits, metasploit modules, vulnerability statistics and list of versions
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.

Embed this notice