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

Bug#594550: RM: webkit/1.0.1-4+lenny2

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:49:54 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:01:37AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The lenny webkit package has an insurmountable number of security
> > vulnerabilities [0].  The version included there was of an experimental
> > nature, and the only front end available is the builtin GtkLauncher
> > app, which isn't very functional itself and is likely used by no one.
> > There are no reverse dependencies.
> > 
> > Please remove the package for the upcoming lenny point release.  I've
> > brought this up with the security team and webkit maintainers [1],[2],
> > and there has so far been no objection.  However, I also didn't get
> > any responses either way.  You may want to try to touch base with
> > either/both teams directly.
> > 
> > I think removal is the only supportable course of action.
> The secure-testing list is inappropriate to ask the security team about a
> package in Lenny.  Please use the appropriate contact and get them to reply.

I was more concerned about getting feedback from the webkit
developers.  I've already talked to Moritz Muehlenhoff from the
security team about this directly.

> Some CVEs are listed as "minor issue - no DSA", so it wouldn't be valid
> to remove it for that.  

Perhaps 10 of the 50 or so issues are no-dsa.  I think it's valid to
remove it due to the 40 other issues.

> (Sadly it seems that there's no overview to list
> a package's vulnerabilities in Lenny at a glance?)

No, there currently isn't a straightfoward way to do that.  However,
you could look at the stable overall page and count the number of
webkit issues there.

However, it seems a direct removal isn't so straightforward since there
are two reverse dependencies: mono-tools-gui and
claws-mail-extra-plugins. Note that the popcon counts are low for
those: 131 [1] and 258 [2] respectively.  Perhaps it would be ok to
remove them as well?

Or perhaps instead there could be an end-of-life security announcement?


Reply to: