[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Potentially insecure Perl scripts

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 07:41:52PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Potentially insecure Perl scripts"):
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:18:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > To the Debian Perl maintainers: [...]
> > > To the Debian security team: [...]
> > 
> > I've read the whole thread and am surprised "talking to upstream" (and
> > fixing the issue there as well) hasn't really been on the table. :/ Did I
> > miss that?
> This bug was reported upstream here 18 years ago
>   https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=2783
> and they took of those years to sort-of half-document it.
> I guess you mean that we should try again ?  That's probably
> worthwhile.
> Maybe it would be best if this were fronted by someone who can bring
> themselves to be more diplomatic about this situation than I can find
> it in myself to be right now.

Myself or Niko can deal with taking this conversation upstream, but
please allow some time for this.

> In the meantime we do need to bear in mind that we do have
> approximately these two options:
>  1. Change the behaviour of perl so that it matches the majority of
>     the documentation, so that -n and -p and <> fulfil their purpose
>     and can be used, and so that they satisfy the expections (or at
>     least wishes) of the vast majority of Perl programmers.
>     Risk a probably tiny amount of fallout.
>     If we do this in Debian without cooperation from upstream, set an
>     example which might lead other distros to fix it too; albeit
>     through diverging from upstream behaviour.
>  2. Internally in Debian file a massive MBF to review thousands
>     and thousands of uses for safety.
>     Leave the world's existing scripts to be insecure and tolerate
>     that people will continue to write insecure scripts.
>     Write clumsy circumlocutions everywhere instead of <> and -p and
>     -n.  (Note that <<>> is not right because it does not honour `-'.)
>     Add notes to the documentation saying never to use <> or
>     -p or -n (WTF).
> (2) certainly cannot be done quickly.  If (1) cannot be done quickly
> it should IMO be done slowly.

Again - please do not force us to rush this. It is not a new situation
so rushing and panicing is not warranted.

Fixing this situation in collaboration with upstream is the only sane
approach, however the final details are worked out.


Reply to: