This approach

> let's delete autoconf-generated cruft from upstream projects and regenerate 
> it in %prep

To me sounds woefully inappropriate for the task at hand. You remove a single 
attack vector while completely overlooking that many of your maintainers don't 
have the qualifications to vet the included code even if it's autoconf-cruft 
free.

AFAIK, the bad code discovered in XZ was on its way to the GIT repo, could have 
been included in a slightly different way and if not for the wonderful 
discovery by the Microsoft software engineer of all people, we'd be dealing 
with a whole much more terrible outcome.

The source code must be vetted. In a perfect world, considering the entire 
source code is available, an API calls map for each release could be 
built/extracted, so that whenever a new version is published by the upstream, a 
new map for the new release could easily show at least all the new API calls 
that the project now uses to easily discover whether new features correspond to 
what the project maintainer published in their changelog. Probably another 
"anti-freedom" proposal.

And of course, would be great to employ all the methods of automated software 
verification, like static analysis, sandboxing, fuzzying, etc. I'm just 
dreaming.

Let's pretend this incident is entirely about autoconf stuff, and not about a 
software project being hijacked by hostile actors. And of course, you're 
absolutely sure this hasn't already happened in other widely used projects and 
will never happen again.

Again, sorry for intervening. I just freaked out when I realized my Linux box 
might have been compromised after almost believing in the persistent myth of 
"multiple eyes" (five?) scanning open source software for malware. It's not 
been the case, the entire proposal that we are discussing here is not talking 
about it either. I'm confused.

Regards,
Artem
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to