https://github.com/danielmiessler/SecLists is now licensed MIT. Thanks, Eric, for talking to Daniel Miessler for us and getting this taken care of!
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excellent, Eric. That neatly cleans up the problem. I do think we > should merge my PR (1677), regardless, if for no other reason than to > honour the authors' attribution request. > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) > <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >> I emailed the owner of the password file earlier today and he agreed to >> change or dual-license the project to MIT. >> >> —Eric >> >>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Rob, >>> >>> Just because we remove it for now doesn't mean we have to leave it out >>> forever. I encourage you to contribute to the thread on the legal mailing >>> list to make your case or at least get an understanding of their >>> requirements. The ASF does tend to lean toward conservative interpretations. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:08 PM Robert Butts <robert.o.bu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That's correct. No RPM, unfortunately. License is here: >>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Projects/OWASP_SecLists_Project. >>>> >>>> -1 on downloading during rpmbuild, or especially postinstall. Both pose a >>>> security risk. Moreover, it makes our build or install dependent on the >>>> internet and a particular website. Neither building nor installing should >>>> require either internet or a particular website; we should be working to >>>> get away from that, not towards it. >>>> >>>> I'd prefer to find something Apache is ok with vendoring, if we have to. >>>> Though, ideally we'd keep this one, Daniel Miessler is a well-known name in >>>> the security community. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Eric.. Then it's possible we could download it during >>>>> rpmbuild or postinstall. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) >>>>> <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>> It can be downloaded from Github. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is the file (Rob correct me if I picked the wrong >>>> variant): >>>>> https://github.com/danielmiessler/SecLists/blob/ >>>>> master/Passwords/10_million_password_list_top_100000.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> —Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com<mailto: >>>> dang >>>>> o...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob, is there a specific download location for this file? I see it >>>>>> referenced as "Projects/OWASP SecLists Project", but didn't find it >>>>>> with a quick search. Is it possible it's provided by an rpm we could >>>>>> list as a dependency rather than including in our source? >>>>>> >>>>>> -dan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Robert Butts < >>>> robert.o.bu...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:robert.o.bu...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> I'd really like to keep this, or replace it with a similar file from >>>>>> another source. Which I'd be willing to investigate, if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Having a good blacklist of most-common passwords specifically puts >>>>> Traffic >>>>>> Ops in compliance with NIST SP 800-63B. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also don't understand the objections, the Apache Legal FAQ >>>> specifically >>>>>> says CC-SA is permissible, and doesn't say anything about being limited >>>>> to >>>>>> binary (which would be odd, CC is designed for text, not binary). >>>>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd vote we wait for the legal resolution, or find a suitable >>>>> replacement, >>>>>> in order to remain in NIST compliance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:55 AM, David Neuman < >>>> david.neuma...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>> I don't know if you have been following the release 2.1 thread on the >>>>>> incubator list [1] , but we have been given a -1 vote by the IPMC for >>>>>> having a file in our release [2] that has an incompatible license. >>>> There >>>>>> is some debate about the license, and we have reached out to Legal for >>>>> more >>>>>> information [3] (thanks Eric!), but we haven't heard back from legal >>>> yet. >>>>>> Instead of waiting for legal to get back to us, I would like to propose >>>>>> that we instead remove this file from our release. The file in >>>> question >>>>> is >>>>>> just a list of weak passwords and I feel like we can easily include a >>>>> blank >>>>>> file, or a file with a couple passwords that we generate, and >>>> individual >>>>>> installs of Traffic Control can replace this file as they see fit. >>>> This >>>>>> will >>>>>> remove issue of having an incompatible license in our release and >>>> should >>>>>> also not require us to do a code change. The downside of removing this >>>>>> file is that we will need to create another 2.1 release candidate and >>>> go >>>>>> through the vote process again. I would really like to see us get 2.1 >>>>>> released before the end of the year, and at this point our chances are >>>>>> looking pretty slim. So, does anyone object to removing this file from >>>>> our >>>>>> release? If not, I will put an issue into github, remove the file, and >>>>>> back port the change so that we can get another 2.1 release candidate >>>>> out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c211f049e3d68af90196c30f6b6d31 >>>>>> a67b3072029dea1efe7d35c9dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> apache-trafficcontrol-2.1.0-incubating/traffic_ops/app/ >>>>>> conf/invalid_passwords.txt >>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-356 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
