- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork500
-
Currently there are alot of "unreviewed" advisories sitting in this repository that represent very real and known vulnerabilities in potential ecosystems but who currently cannot be represented in the OSV specification as they don't map to a defined ecosystem. This has already created a "chicken vs egg" situation because in order to remain valid to the specification these advisories don't have any I want to propose that GitHubdeliberately violate the OSV specification for those advisories in favor of attempting to include as much affected information as possible in the unreviewed advisories so that folks can more easily try and find patterns in these advisories that could lead to new ecosystems being proposed for the specification. I think there's a number of forms this could actually take and that ultimately its probably for GitHub to decide what works best for them and how far they want to take it - I personally would probably start by ensuring as much of the version-based information is present, ignoring/dropping the This probably won't work nicely for every single unreviewed advisory, but that's also part of the point of this: currently the amount of advisories is huge, so we want to try and sort through them to identity the more complex advisories by reducing the number of completely unreviewed advisories. The example I've been thinking about is WordPress plugins: I know there are unreviewed advisories for WordPress plugins, so they could be tagged with something that identified them as that and then people could exclude/include those depending on what they're wanting (e.g. my place of work is very interested in that because we have some WordPress sites, so if we could pick outjust WP plugin advisories and they had at least some |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
❤️ 1
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
-
This also makes sense to me -- starting with unsupported ecosystemsonly in "unreviewed" could be a good way to trial a new ecosystem that can be later properly specified in the OSV spec. We can explicitly document that anything in "unreviewed" do not strictly follow OSV. On how to do this, I'd recommend not using the {"unsupported_ecosystem":"Wordpress","name":"plugin-name"} |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
❤️ 3
-
I just stumbled upon this today, and want to put on the record that anything that winds up getting done ~today will need to be JSON schema-compliant in order for OSV.dev to be able to import it successfully, so we'd need to add this |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Related discussion: |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.