|Summary:||devel/psptoolchain-binutils: Multiple security vulnerabilities|
|Product:||Ports & Packages||Reporter:||Sevan Janiyan <venture37>|
|Component:||Individual Port(s)||Assignee:||Ports Security Team <ports-secteam>|
|Severity:||Affects Some People||CC:||arrowd, cs, feld, joneum, ports-secteam, rene, tphilipp, w.schwarzenfeld|
Description Sevan Janiyan 2015-03-23 01:07:35 UTC
Comment 1 Carlo Strub 2015-09-14 22:04:51 UTC
You have any patches to cleanup this port?
Comment 2 Tassilo Philipp 2015-09-15 13:30:06 UTC
Not yet, I've unfortunately not had any time to look into this, yet. Too much going on, currently, sorry... Also, not sure if the importance needs to be set to "affects many people", as I doubt that. This port of binutils is only used for the psptoolchain, there are no other dependencies on it. I don't think a lot of people are actually using this. But, bigger question: Given that this port is actually port of an existing patchset against gnu binutils 2.22, adding PSP support, it's a bit of an undertaking to switch to a newer binutils version, b/c the source-patchset didn't, yet. Not sure how to handle this best - fork from the sources and maintain an own, newer version of binutils, or actually just add patches to fix those vulnerabilities? Input welcome.
Comment 3 Carlo Strub 2015-09-15 17:14:28 UTC
I think it would be best and safest (for the future) to just link to the binutils port if possible. Given the maintainer seems not very active, feel free to try a port if time permits.
Comment 4 Mark Felder 2016-01-08 18:00:30 UTC
assigning to ports-secteam
Comment 5 Walter Schwarzenfeld 2018-01-09 09:41:41 UTC
I am not sure, but ===> Registering installation for psptoolchain-binutils-2.22_1 Installing psptoolchain-binutils-2.22_1... ===> Cleaning for psptoolchain-binutils-2.22_1 sudo pkg audit 0 problem(s) in the installed packages found. is it fixed?
Comment 6 Tassilo Philipp 2018-01-18 09:48:18 UTC
(In reply to w.schwarzenfeld from comment #5) Unsure, but I don't think so. I'm still not sure how to best handle this. Ideally this would use binutils > 2.24, but upstream stays on 2.22, as their patches are for that version (the psptoolchain is basically a patchset itself, which are merely ported here). Also, given this is for building PSP binaries, this is not a security risk to FreeBSD. Maybe that's why pkg audit doesn't show any problems? The best way, IMHO is for me maybe to port their stuff to a newer binutils version, then share this work upstream. Thoughts?
Comment 7 Gleb Popov 2020-04-25 17:12:32 UTC
I qualify this as upstream problem, so I'd close this PR and reopen it upstream (wherever it is).
Comment 8 Tassilo Philipp 2020-05-04 15:44:49 UTC
Thanks for understanding. I have the same problem about not even knowing what upstream is. The old ps2dev.org went away, and some people seem to run different github repos now, the most likely being https://github.com/pspdev/psptoolchain/ However, there is no clarity IMHO whether this is the new de-facto official place or not, at least I cannot find any mention of ps2dev on there or the wiki they point to: http://www.darkhaven3.com/psp-dev/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Since this is the most complete/comprehensive, though, let's assume this is upstream. Please let me know if there is something for me to do, or if I can be helpful in any way. Thanks
Comment 9 Jochen Neumeister 2020-05-23 11:56:28 UTC
WWW: http://www.ps2dev.org/ this website was not found. Maintainer: can you pls check, ist there a other Website? Otherwise I would suggest to delete the port. /add @rene (portmgr) because of possible deletion of the port - also because of these security Vulnerabilities and no new version (website down) joneum (ports-secteam)
Comment 10 Tassilo Philipp 2020-05-23 12:34:41 UTC
(In reply to Jochen Neumeister from comment #9) I don't understand the suggestion to remove the port without neither having taken into account the discussion above, nor the fact that none of the sources even depend on www.ps2dev.org. If you want me to change the pkg-descr, I can do that. About the security question, please refer to the discussion above. So, what do you want me to do?
Comment 11 Jochen Neumeister 2020-05-23 12:50:21 UTC
We have a security vulnerability in the port, it was reported in 2015. https://www.freshports.org/devel/psptoolchain-binutils show me this Info WWW: http://www.ps2dev.org This website is not accessible for me. As ports-secteam I have to make sure that ports with security holes are closed as soon as possible. What can you do as a maintainer? If the project has a new website, for example change this into port. And preferably a patch / update to finally solve the 2015 security problem. Ports that have a security hole for years that are not closed will be removed from the port-tree. It would be great if we can solve the problem soon :-)
Comment 12 Tassilo Philipp 2020-05-23 13:12:23 UTC
Thank you for the input. I understand your role as a ports-secteam member, but I want to point out in this specific case, which is a dilemma: - there are hundreds of ports that have broken urls in the pkg-descr, so I really do not understand why this plays into security; however, sure, I can update this, it isn't sure whether this site will come back to life or not, I have no control over it - I was asking years ago already what to do, as this is an upstream problem, which include, so could you please provide input on this? To sum it up, this is not a security problem for FreeBSD, as it affects the cross-built psp binaries - you suggest "patching" it: yes, I can cherry pick the security fixes against binutils, but I'm sure that pkg-audit will not be happy after this, as it does a mere comparison of the binutils version number Believe me, I also would be very happy if this could be sorted, soon. I want to, but I either get no, or conflicting feedback here. I hope this makes sense
Comment 13 Gleb Popov 2021-07-15 16:12:14 UTC
From what I gather, the upstream is https://github.com/pspdev/psptoolchain and https://psp-dev.org At least, these sites aren't down/archived and reference each other. There is even some activity in the GitHub repo. However, the software itself is just a script to build another software from source. I don't really see a point for this port, so I propose to remove it.
Comment 14 Tassilo Philipp 2021-07-17 15:13:42 UTC
(In reply to Gleb Popov from comment #13) When I worked on the first version of this port I was told that I cannot just port this "script", b/c then it would download things during the build phase, which makes sense. The consensus back then was to basically reproduce the script. This means that upstream's work is in this case not the script as we don't use it, but basically the patches. So I don't really understand your suggestion to remove this port, where exactly is the problem with the way it was done, as also suggested back then by other ports committers?
Comment 15 Gleb Popov 2021-07-17 17:51:34 UTC
(In reply to Tassilo Philipp from comment #14) Ok, this makes sense. This is a rare case when the port has 2 usptreams: the one is that GitHub repo containing patches and the other is an "upstream of upstream", the binutils project itself. Your port is basically and alternative to the GitHub repo upstream. And after thinking about this a bit, I'd say I like the approach. However, I still do not see the point of keeping this PR open. Since you are the maintainer you should either fix the port yourself by adding necessary patches or report this issue to the upstream and wait them to fix it. The upstream would either pull the patches from the "upstream of upstream" or even rebase their patches on top on newer binutils.
Comment 16 Tassilo Philipp 2021-07-18 11:52:38 UTC
(In reply to Gleb Popov from comment #15) I agree, this PR doesn't need to be open, and the fact that it is is basically the dilemma I wrote about in previous comments, and conflicting- or no answers from others that participated in this discussion. If I understand you correctly, your first suggestion is to fix the port by adding patches, this could mean two things: - either cherry pick the security patches that were done against binutils 2.22 relating to the mentioned CVEs and integrated them into the port; in that case I'm not sure how pkg-audio would be happy b/c it would still just see v2.22 (or am I missing something) - or upgrade myself to a newer binutils version (given the amount of patches to get the psp supported, this is a bit more involved) Your second suggestion is to contact upstream and lobby them to upgrade. It's true that I should probably retry this, probably first, despite previous attempts that went nowhere: Previous experience was that when ps2dev.org went down, I had a hard time even knowing what upstream is, as seemingly unofficial mirrors with different changesets came up. Emails from years ago remained unanswered. Now there seems to be psp-dev.org which didn't even exist at the time of the last comments on this PR (before you pitched in). The page seems to have been created in september 2020 - thanks for digging that up! Also, the github repo you mention seems to be the de-facto upstream by now. They even did upgrade the binutils version to 2.23, however that version is still vulnerable. So, I'll check with psp-dev.org, and report back. Thanks for reviving this and bringing this new page to my attention, that I didn't know of.
Comment 17 Tassilo Philipp 2021-08-19 07:08:54 UTC
I mailed the people that run psp-dev.org multiple times now, but zero replies. I'll wait for a bit longer, but I start to seriously consider removing this port and all the other psptoolchain* ports, as they depend on it.