I'm happy to contribute. Kevin Risden
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Arrieta, Alejandro < aarri...@perrinsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi Gus, > > thx 4 clarification. > Well I need to work on those 2 requirements then :-) > > Thanks > Alejandro Arrieta > > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:40 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, since part of the duties will be responding to the queries > > sent to secur...@solr.apache.org, one must be both a committer and a PMC > > member. However, I expect that this group will make suggestions about > > anything unrelated to un-announced security issues to the wider list for > a > > typical discussion/proposal/vote cycle. > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:28 PM Arrieta, Alejandro < > > aarri...@perrinsoftware.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello Team, > > > > > > Do you need to be a committer to join the group? > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Alejandro Arrieta > > > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:23 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Cool that means so far we have: > > > > > > > > 1. Me (Gus Heck) > > > > 2. Jason Gerlowski > > > > 3. Mike Drob > > > > 4. (maybe?) David Smiley > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Howdy folks. I'd be happy to step into this working group. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:34 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Awesome, glad to have you Jason, I in the end feel the same way > > about > > > > my > > > > > > spot. Mostly I qualify as "concerned citizen", possibly with "who > > > > thought > > > > > > about it some and has ideas" added. If we get more than 5 > > volunteers > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > start comparing credentials. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:17 PM Jason Gerlowski < > > > gerlowsk...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a great idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have much security background that'd make me a > > particularly > > > > > > > good fit, but absent someone with that background stepping up, > > I'm > > > > > > > willing to volunteer for one of the spots. (I'd be more than > > happy > > > > to > > > > > > > bow out if better qualified folks come along.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 7:14 PM David Smiley < > dsmi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleepy thread so far; apparently nobody else is > > interested > > > > in > > > > > > > > talking about Solr security -- LOL ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ David Smiley > > > > > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > > > > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:25 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks David. It would be great to have you if you can find > > > time > > > > > for > > > > > > > it. As > > > > > > > > > far as time commitment goes, I think it should become > minimal > > > > > after a > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > unless we have a flood of security reports to respond to. > > For a > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > > while after initial organization, I think the members will > > want > > > > to > > > > > > put > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > bit of effort into hitting some of the goals I mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:28 AM David Smiley < > > > > dsmi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a thoughtful organization attempt and needed, I > > > think. > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Gus! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to see if I could get a security > specialist/engineer > > > > > where I > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > help us with this. I'm tempted to say I'm joining this > > thing > > > > but > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > weary > > > > > > > > > > of dedicating time per week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ David Smiley > > > > > > > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > > > > > > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 1:33 PM Gus Heck < > > gus.h...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Rationale* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over the course of the last decade the way software > > > security > > > > is > > > > > > > viewed > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > changed. Solr has changed significantly over this time > > too > > > > and > > > > > we > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > gained some important security features and fixed a > > variety > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerabilities. However, I think as a project we have > > not > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > developed > > > > > > > > > > > a clear vision of what our security goals and use cases > > > are. > > > > I > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > witnessed a fair bit of variability in the responses to > > > > > security > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > > queries, and I think much of the variability comes from > > > > > > conflation > > > > > > > > > among > > > > > > > > > > > "good practical advice", "somewhat dated advice" and > > > "varying > > > > > > > notions > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > supported use cases". We also regularly receive reports > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > secur...@solr.apache.org address that involve > > > investigations > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > systems > > > > > > > > > > > that are not properly secured to begin with or > configured > > > to > > > > > > > explicitly > > > > > > > > > > > allow the dangerous behavior and it's a shame to see > > > security > > > > > > > > > researchers > > > > > > > > > > > waste their time on that. Finally, the PMC and set of > > > people > > > > > > > subscribed > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > secur...@solr.apache.org is a large enough group that > > > > incoming > > > > > > > mails > > > > > > > > > > often > > > > > > > > > > > seem to languish in a classic example of nobody having > > > actual > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility for responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Proposal* > > > > > > > > > > > The Solr PMC should appoint from among its members > > either 3 > > > > to > > > > > 5 > > > > > > > > > > > individuals to serve as a "security working group" > > > Membership > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > "Security Working Group" requires subscribing to > > > > > > > > > > secur...@solr.apache.org, > > > > > > > > > > > and a 30 minute conference call once or twice a month. > > This > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > > > > would have the following goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Establish a relationship with someone who's core > > job > > > > > > > function is > > > > > > > > > > > computer security, rather than providing search (I'm > > > > hoping > > > > > > the > > > > > > > ASF > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > some people who secure their systems that could be a > > > > > > resource). > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > > should be willing to offer a systems security > > > perspective > > > > on > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > goals > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > the security functionality we provide. > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Develop a clear statement of the security use > cases > > > we > > > > > > would > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > support, and exposition of some scenarios that are > > > clearly > > > > > out > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > > > > This results in a proposal to be discussed on the > dev > > > list > > > > > and > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > list > > > > > > > > > > > and eventually voted on. > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Identification of use cases we would like to > > support > > > > that > > > > > > > are not > > > > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > > supported, and publicize them to encourage these > > > > > > contributions. > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Review of documentation to ensure consistency > with > > > our > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > > state > > > > > > > > > > > (security only, perhaps annually?). > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Creation of a "security report checklist" that > > > security > > > > > > > > > researchers > > > > > > > > > > > can self apply before they submit reports. > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Form letters for consistent response to reports > > that > > > > > > haven't > > > > > > > > > passed > > > > > > > > > > > the checklist. > > > > > > > > > > > 7. Provide consistent and prompt responses to > possible > > > > > > > > > > > vulnerabilities reported to secur...@apache.org. > > Those > > > > > > > subscribed > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > secur...@solr.apache.org who are not in the working > > > group > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > > > the working group time to respond before responding > > > > > > themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > 8. When asked, offer opinions on proposed new > > security > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > > > regarding consistency with the goals (working group > to > > > > > > discuss, > > > > > > > > > return > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > an opinion, always publically and just as a voice in > > the > > > > > > > > > conversation, > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > as any sort of veto/control, decisions are still up > to > > > the > > > > > > list > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > course). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NON-GOAL: The group is not responsible for fixing > > security > > > > bugs > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > adding > > > > > > > > > > > security features. (nothing stopping them of course, > just > > > not > > > > > the > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > the group, which is a goal setting and consistency > > oriented > > > > > > group) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Volunteer* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And to lower the barrier to things started, I volunteer > > to > > > > > > > participate > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > this WG for at least a year, and spend up to 2h/week on > > > it. I > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > any members should be expected to dedicate more than > that > > > to > > > > > it, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > probably many weeks the time required should be less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Feedback* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you think this idea can be tweaked or > > > improved, > > > > > > speak > > > > > > > up! > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > whole reason this is mailed to the dev list is to get > > broad > > > > > > > feedback so > > > > > > > > > > > that we can implement the best improvements possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Gus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > > > > > > > http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > > > > http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > > http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > >
