From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 16 09:26:06 2019 Received: (at 37744) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Oct 2019 13:26:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45420 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iKjJV-0008QQ-SZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:26:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48003) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iKjJU-0008Q5-Pz for 37744@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:26:05 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41957) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iKjJP-0008Hd-Mj; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:25:59 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=57816 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iKjJO-0007YN-UT; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:25:59 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: 37744@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-security@gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#37744: Per-user profile directory hijack (CVE-2019-17365 for Nix) References: <87o8yjsr8o.fsf@gnu.org> <87blujsqq0.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2xno85o.fsf@nckx> <87d0eyuqzd.fsf@gnu.org> <87mue2nkrj.fsf@nckx> <8736fttby6.fsf@gnu.org> <87tv89rnva.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:25:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87tv89rnva.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:22:33 +0200") Message-ID: <878spksty3.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 37744 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello! In addition to the news entry that =E2=80=98guix pull=E2=80=99 will display= , we may want to publicize the issue. In particular, should we: 1. Apply for a new CVE? 2. Post an article on the blog to explain in detail what happened? That should probably include an analysis like that at , given that Guix does things not entirely like Nix here. 3. Email that analysis to oss-security? 4. Push a new release? I=E2=80=99m tempted to think that we should do 1 to 3, as quickly as we can. Help welcome, in particular on #2! As for #4, I think we should push a new release soon anyway, but maybe not just specifically for this issue since it can be addressed simply by upgrading. Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99.