> On Apr 12, 2021, at 03:21, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > On 11/04/2021 21:49, Gian Piero Carrubba wrote: >> * [Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 09:36:05PM +0200] Miroslav Lachman: >>>> On 11/04/2021 21:21, Gian Piero Carrubba wrote: >>>>> CCing ports-secteam@ as it seems a more appropriate recipient. >>> >>> Vulnerabilities in base should be handled by core secteam, not ports >>> secteam. >> The maintainer address for vuxml is ports-secteam@, so my impression is that >> entries in vuxml, regardless if they affect base or ports, are managed by >> them. Am I wrong? > > Because there are entries mainly for ports and vuxml is port too. But the > responsible side for vulnerabilities in base is Security Officer Team. They > are publishing SAs, they should create and submit entries to vuxml. They are > almost always lacking behind, sometimes for months. I tried created patches > with entries in the past because I am the author of base-audit script and > maintainer of the port but then it was waiting for a long time to have it > confirmed by Security Officer Team. > > I fought with this many times.
Hi there! Secteam has been pretty faithfully putting base issues into vuxml for the past year at least, thanks to the tireless work by Philip. The current issues were committed to vuxml 6 days ago. Apparently, the backend that serves the vuxml for clients hasn’t been updated for the ports git transition. There is a pr for that already and hopefully it will be sorted soon. Regards, Gordon _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
