So with the PR I will need to make to get this fixes going, would you want me to just add dependabot? I believe that is an issue but can't remember for sure but I can get it hooked up for both scala/sbt and for node/ts/extension.
On 2022/03/25 01:13:07 Steve Lawrence wrote: > I believe the sbt way to override transitive dependencies is with the > dependencyOverrides setting: > > https://www.scala-sbt.org/1.x/docs/Library-Management.html#Overriding+a+version > > While we're at it, we may want to also update all dependencies so > everything is at the latest. Eventually we'll want dependabot to help us > with that and automate it, but the sbt-updates plugin can be used to > manually check for updates: > > https://github.com/rtimush/sbt-updates > > On 3/24/22 9:02 PM, Shane Dell wrote: > > So its an issue com.microsoft.java:com.microsoft.java.debug.core:0.31.1 but > > updating to com.microsoft.java:com.microsoft.java.debug.core:0.35.0, which > > is the latest, it still uses a commons-lang3:3.6. So what do I do for these > > items since updating to the latest version don't fix them? > > > > > > On 2022/03/25 00:37:40 Steve Lawrence wrote: > >> The sbt dependency graph plugin might help to show where transitive > >> dependencies are coming from: > >> > >> https://github.com/sbt/sbt-dependency-graph > >> > >> > >> On 3/24/22 8:34 PM, Shane Dell wrote: > >>> I would say it is correct as in the list of jars for log4j-api I am > >>> seeing 2.17.2 which is the version that fixed that CVE issue right? If so > >>> we are good on that from. I was able to fix the logback errors by > >>> updating logback-classic from 1.2.3 to 1.2.11. Still trying to figure out > >>> log4cat-slf4j as well as core because the latest version seems to be > >>> 2.2.0 but that still has a CVE. I am also working on where > >>> commons-lang3-3.6 comes from as it most be a dependency of a dependency. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2022/03/24 16:17:14 Steve Lawrence wrote: > >>>> Interesting. This might be a difference between 3.3.0 and 4.0.0 of the > >>>> plugin? I get your list with 4.0.0, and a different list with 3.3.0. > >>>> > >>>> Note that vscode does include log4j-api-2.17.0.jar. The log4j CVE's were > >>>> fixed in 2.17.2, so it's a bit concerning that this is only 2.17.0. But > >>>> maybe the vulnerability is only in log4j-core, which vscode does not > >>>> include? > >>>> > >>>> So maybe this 4.0.0 list is correct, assuming log4j-api doesn't have the > >>>> vulnerability? > >>>> > >>>> On 3/24/22 11:11 AM, Shane Dell wrote: > >>>>> I get the vulnerabilities for: > >>>>> > >>>>> - commons-lang3-3.6.jar > >>>>> - log4cats-core_2.12-2.2.0.jar > >>>>> - log4cats-slf4j_2.12-2.2.0.jar > >>>>> - logback-classic-1.2.3.jar > >>>>> - logback-core-1.2.3.jar > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't get anything about log4j-api. And the only onces with a HIGH > >>>>> Severity value are the two log4cats items. So is yours picking up > >>>>> cached dependencies or ones from other projects not just the vscode > >>>>> repo? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2022/03/24 15:05:27 Shane Dell wrote: > >>>>>> So I think the log4j errors you are seeing are coming from a library > >>>>>> dependency the Scala debugger user, this being `log4cats-slf4j` which > >>>>>> only goes to 2.2.0 put still has two high CVE's, Adam maybe you know > >>>>>> if we can switch this something else to avoid the vulnerabilities? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2022/03/24 14:02:37 Steve Lawrence wrote: > >>>>>>> I just used this for the dependency check, that has all the > >>>>>>> instructions > >>>>>>> that are needed: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://github.com/albuch/sbt-dependency-check > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They say to put that in project/plugins.sbt, but I recommend putting > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>> in ~/.sbt/1.0/plugins/plugins.sbt, then it's available for any project > >>>>>>> you might use (e.g. both daffodil and vscode). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then just run "sbt dependencyCheckAggregate", and the resulting report > >>>>>>> is put in target/scala-2.12/dependency-check-report.html. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure I would recommend adding CVE checking to CI because > >>>>>>> downloading the CVE database takes a long time, especially the first > >>>>>>> time. I might recommend instead just enabling dependabot, that's been > >>>>>>> good about keeping Daffodil dependencies up to date. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 3/24/22 9:45 AM, Shane Dell wrote: > >>>>>>>> Fixing the CVEs and bumping up to Daffodil 3.3.0 make sense to me. > >>>>>>>> Steve how would I setup the dependency check you are doing so I make > >>>>>>>> sure I use versions that fix it? Figure it would be good to add that > >>>>>>>> into build.sbt/source so it can be ran in CI at some stage as well. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 2022/03/24 13:42:36 Mike Beckerle wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Since we have to fix the CVE issues, we should also update to > >>>>>>>>> Daffodil 3.3.0 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:04 AM Steve Lawrence > >>>>>>>>> <slawre...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think I've sort of found the issue with the different .class > >>>>>>>>>> files. If > >>>>>>>>>> I disassemble the class files that don't match, they all have > >>>>>>>>>> diffs that > >>>>>>>>>> look like this: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - 21: ldc #155 // String > >>>>>>>>>> Uninitialized > >>>>>>>>>> field: /home/user/daffodil-vscode/path/to/file.scala: 394 > >>>>>>>>>> + 21: ldc #155 // String > >>>>>>>>>> Uninitialized > >>>>>>>>>> field: /root/daffodil-vscode/path/to/file.scala: 394 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Note that the uninitialized field path changes depending on the > >>>>>>>>>> system > >>>>>>>>>> that built it. So absolute paths are compiled into the bytecode > >>>>>>>>>> somehow. > >>>>>>>>>> The surrounding byte code suggests that this is about a > >>>>>>>>>> scala.UninitializedError exception, my guess is that path shows up > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> that exception message. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why we don't see this issue with Daffodil. Maybe > >>>>>>>>>> Daffodil > >>>>>>>>>> does something different so we can't have any > >>>>>>>>>> UninitializedFieldErrors? > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think this needs to be fixed for this released, but I would > >>>>>>>>>> prefer it is fixed for next release. I can change that to a [MINOR] > >>>>>>>>>> finding. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> My vote stills stays a -1 for the CVE issues, though. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/22 8:44 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> -1 (binding) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Main issues is inclusion of packages with open CVE's, I think that > >>>>>>>>>>> should be fixed for this release. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm also concerned about differences I found between the released > >>>>>>>>>>> daffodil-debugger jar and the same jar I built from source. Class > >>>>>>>>>>> files inside that jar differ, and it's not clear why. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I checked: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] hashes and signatures of source and helper binares are > >>>>>>>>>>> correct > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] signature of git tag is correct > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] source release matches git tag > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] source compiles using yarn build > >>>>>>>>>>> [NOT OK] compiled source matches convenience binary > >>>>>>>>>>> The org.apache.daffodil.daffodil-debugger-1.0.0.jar > >>>>>>>>>>> packaged in > >>>>>>>>>>> daffodil-debugger-3.2.1-1.0.0.zip is different when I > >>>>>>>>>>> build the > >>>>>>>>>>> .vsix file from source. Numerous .class files inside that > >>>>>>>>>>> jar have > >>>>>>>>>>> different hashes. This is unexpected. We don't have this > >>>>>>>>>>> issue with > >>>>>>>>>>> Daffodil, so I'm concerned something with the vscode build > >>>>>>>>>>> system is > >>>>>>>>>>> broke. > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] src and binaries include correct LICENSE/NOTICE > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] RAT check passes > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] no unexpected binaries in source > >>>>>>>>>>> [OK] vsix installs without error > >>>>>>>>>>> [NOT OK] No open CVE's found using sbt-dependency-check plugin > >>>>>>>>>>> Scan found three packages with open CVES: > >>>>>>>>>>> - log4j-api-2.17.0.jar > >>>>>>>>>>> - logback-classic-1.2.3.jar > >>>>>>>>>>> - logback-core-1.2.3.jar > >>>>>>>>>>> We depend on Daffodil 3.2.1 which should pull in log4j > >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.2 which > >>>>>>>>>>> addresses the CVE's. Seems like something is overriding > >>>>>>>>>>> that? Also > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure where the logback dependency is pulled in from, > >>>>>>>>>>> but maybe > >>>>>>>>>>> related. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [MINOR] The "publisher" for the vsix file is "asf". That should > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be "Apache Software Foundation" or just "Apache", > >>>>>>>>>>> or maybe > >>>>>>>>>>> it should be "Apache Daffodil". We can have this > >>>>>>>>>>> discussion later, > >>>>>>>>>>> but this should be fixed for the next release. > >>>>>>>>>>> [MINOR] The README shows up in VS Code, but is focused on how to > >>>>>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>>>>> the extension. This makes sense for the main github > >>>>>>>>>>> README, but I > >>>>>>>>>>> wonder if the README displayed in VS Code wants to be > >>>>>>>>>>> different, and > >>>>>>>>>>> focus more on features/usability. We already have a > >>>>>>>>>>> differnt LICENSE > >>>>>>>>>>> file, we should do the same for the README? > >>>>>>>>>>> [MINOR] The LICENSE file has incorrect indentation making it > >>>>>>>>>>> difficult > >>>>>>>>>>> to see where one sub component ends and another begins. > >>>>>>>>>>> Would be > >>>>>>>>>>> helfup to fix this for the next release. The file bundled > >>>>>>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>>>>>> .vsix binary looks good. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/22 3:06 PM, Shane Dell wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignore the last vote as I did not change my email to the proper > >>>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>> registered for apache. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil VS Code > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-rc2. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>> can be > >>>>>>>>>>>> found at: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/daffodil/daffodil-vscode/1.0.0-rc2/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key > >>>>>>>>>>>> 86DDE7B41291E380237934F007570D3ADC76D51B, corresponding > >>>>>>>>>>>> to shaned...@apache.org, which is included in the KEYS file here: > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://downloads.apache.org/daffodil/KEYS > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with 1.0.0-rc2. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed GitHub issues tagged > >>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+is%3A1.0.0 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 > >>>>>>>>>>>> hours > >>>>>>>>>>>> (Sunday, 17 March 2022, 12 Noon EST). > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve > >>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > >>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Shane Dell > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
