Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Include more details in "unreviewed" advisories#568

G-Rath started this conversation inIdeas
Discussion options

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 anyaffected details which means while tools likeosv-detector can load them, there's nothing for it to compare against - however it's a lot harder to propose a new ecosystem if we can't do any analysis or prototyping.

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 theecosystem property for now (i.e. rather than picking experimental or arbitrary ecosystem names), and start with a sort of high-level based tagging.

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 someaffected information we could explore that further; whereas other people who are trying to pick out some potential new ecosystems could exclude WP plugin advisories since they're already "tagged")

You must be logged in to vote

Replies: 2 comments 1 reply

Comment options

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"ecosystem" field as that can cause confusion/inconsistencies once an ecosystem is officially supported later and instead use something else like:

{"unsupported_ecosystem":"Wordpress","name":"plugin-name"}
You must be logged in to vote
1 reply
@andrewpollock
Comment options

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 thisunsupported_ecosystem field to the schema, officially...

Comment options

Related discussion:

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Category
Ideas
Labels
None yet
4 participants
@G-Rath@oliverchang@andrewpollock@kmk3

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp