geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Handling of Security Exposures in Geronimo
Date Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:15:58 GMT
Kevan Miller wrote:
> All,
> There was a recent report by Fortify on Open Source Security -- 
> The report says there were some number of potential vulnerabilities 
> identified in Geronimo. No details of the vulnerabilities have been 
> reported to us (although the tests seem to have been run some time 
> ago...). Once we understand what the potential vulnerabilities are, we 
> can start to assess...
> The report does identify concerns that we could be doing a better job of 
> reporting security vulnerabilities and letting users know how they can 
> report security vulnerabilities to our project. I agree with this.
> As noted here -- -- any 
> ASF security concerns can be safely relayed with an email to 
> It probably makes sense for us to create a 
> mailing list. Project-specific security mailing lists are automatically 
> relayed to the mailing list. A project-specific list 
> will reduce spam and allow us to focus on Geronimo issues, rather than 
> Apache-wide issues.


> I also think that we should create a security page on our web site (e.g. 
> This page could be used to describe how 
> any potential vulnerabilities should be reported. It should also be used 
> to report vulnerabilities as they are fixed. This allows users to easily 
> identify what security exposures a particular version of Geronimo might 
> have.


> Thoughts on the mailing list and web site? Assuming we're in general 
> agreement, I'd like to see us working on these in the near future.

I think they are both good ideas.

> Finally, I've learned that there are a few potential sources for running 
> static code analysis scans against our codebase:
> I think we should take a look at these and decide if it's something we 
> want to take advantage of. Thoughts?

It's probably worth taking a look.  Looking at the fortify site and the 
"rungs" on the coverity site got me thinking about the packages we 
include.  Some of them are listed but many are not.  I wonder how 
valuable running scans on Geronimo would be if the dependent packages 
are not also participating.  We might end up being the middleman for 
reporting security issues in a number of other projects.  I guess that's 
still good as long as they are caught ... but it might be a good bit of 


View raw message