On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Patrick Mylund Nielsen <cryptogra...@patrickmylund.com> wrote: > I would be happy to volunteer to move everything to Github. But it really is > really, really easy to do, and the maintenance required is minimal. That or > git+redmine or git+JIRA would be my suggestion.
The team has ruled out having the master at github. > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Matthew Green <matthewdgr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > So: >> > >> > 1. What is the process by which you get OpenSSL contributors to notice a >> > serious issue and apply a patch? >> >> I wouldn't know, I haven't tried :-) >> >> In my case, just ask (me, that is, not some mailing list). If the >> issue is serious, I will likely apply the patch. >> >> > 2. What are the criteria for applying a patch? Is it just 'whatever >> > interests the devs'? It seems that publishing an exploit works, but is that >> > necessary? >> >> I think it can be taken as read that the devs are interested in the >> security and stability of OpenSSL. >> >> > 3. It's 2012 -- why the **** is OpenSSL running its own ticket tracker >> > and source control servers??? (RT is a disaster.) >> >> Damn good question. Probably because we don't have a volunteer to move >> everything somewhere else and keep it running. >> >> > 4. What does it take to become an OpenSSL volunteer? >> >> :-) Like most (good) open source projects: sustained contribution. >> >> > >> > Matt >> > >> > On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, John Case <c...@sdf.org> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [SNIP] >> >>>> >> >>>> Apparently you think the best way to get a secure platform is to >> >>>> apply >> >>>> pressure through pointless security standards. I'd suggest your >> >>>> efforts might be better spent supplying patches instead. Or, y'know, >> >>>> talking to the authors of the s/w in question. You never know, they >> >>>> might care. >> >>> Ah, OK. My bad. >> >>> >> >>> I've tried supplying patches and filing bug report/enhancement >> >>> requests. >> >>> >> >>> Here was a gentle patch for spelling corrections in a README - >> >>> rejected. >> >>> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2401. >> >> >> >> AFAICS that is not rejected, it is ignored. There's a difference. >> >> >> >> Also, your patch appears to be reversed. Or your spelling is terrible >> >> :-) >> >> >> >>> Here was a patch for Xcode awareness - rejected (is it fair to say >> >>> when its sites for years without acknowledgement?). >> >>> >> >>> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2402. >> >> >> >> Also not rejected. >> >> >> >> Now, I agree that having patches ignored isn't so great either, but >> >> the problem is: >> >> >> >> * RT doesn't actually work, the guy who allegedly maintains our >> >> infrastructure doesn't, and the team can't agree what to do about it >> >> (not that its tried very hard). >> >> >> >> * OpenSSL is mostly maintained by volunteers, who may not have felt >> >> particularly inspired by your patches, or may just have missed them. >> >> >> >> * When people are paid, they're generally paid to do specific things, >> >> not to trawl through RT (if they even could) looking for patches to >> >> adopt. I'm sure someone could pay for that if they want to, though. >> >> >> >> * CVS is a shit tool, too, making it hard to deal with patches - we've >> >> even agreed as a team to move off it, but see above about >> >> infrastructure :-) >> >> >> >>> I can't locate a bug report on the use of the uninitialized data. >> >>> Perhaps I had the discussion on the developer's mailing list (I know >> >>> I'm not imagining it, so my apologies). >> >>> >> >>> I am also aware that patches existed for some time for CCM mode, GCM >> >>> mode, and SRP. In the case of GCM, IBM supplied the patches 5 or 10 >> >>> years earlier. None were acted upon. >> >> >> >> It always amuses me when bigcorp pays to have a patch made, but >> >> somehow manages to fail to understand that the guy applying the patch >> >> has to eat, too. Plus, ISTR the IP situation is none too clear on all >> >> of these. >> >> >> >> This reminds me of the first attempt to FIPSify OpenSSL, where there >> >> was zero budget for the developer - just money for test labs and the >> >> like ("what do you mean you want money to work on it? I thought it was >> >> free software!"). >> >> >> >>> The project does not appear to want outside help. If I am drawing the >> >>> wrong conclusion, please forgive me. >> >> >> >> I'll grant you that your very small patches could be considered help, >> >> and it is a little unfortunate they they were ignored, but like I say, >> >> RT is a shit tool, at least as implemented at OpenSSL, as is CVS (I >> >> notice you didn't supply the needed 4 patches, just a single one) and >> >> no-one's paying anyone to pick patches up from it, particularly. >> >> >> >> The rest of your "help" appears to be specifying flags you'd like to >> >> be used and expecting us to do the work for you. Which I actually >> >> might, I find that kind of thing therapeutic, but you get my point. >> >> >> >> I think the project would welcome help - but it needs to be useful help >> >> :-) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> cryptography mailing list >> >> cryptography@randombit.net >> >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> cryptography mailing list >> cryptography@randombit.net >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
