| 31 Oct 2024 |
 K900 | * Elaborate? | 15:47:12 |
| K900 | You should probably just ask your question here | 15:47:18 |
 .. | I’m exploring ways to contribute to NixOS with a focus on enhancing dependency resolution and improving efficiency in complex package builds. If someone point me to the maintainers or contributors involved in dependency management or package optimization, it would be great. | 15:49:16 |
| .. | * I’m exploring ways to contribute to Nix with a focus on enhancing dependency resolution and improving efficiency in complex package builds. If someone point me to the maintainers or contributors involved in dependency management or package optimization, it would be great. | 15:50:09 |
| K900 | You're saying words that don't mean things | 15:56:02 |
| K900 | Nix doesn't do dependency resolution | 15:56:07 |
 emily | I believe the CVSS in https://github.com/NixOS/nix/security/advisories/GHSA-wf4c-57rh-9pjg is inaccurate. "Attack Complexity: High" seems inaccurate as it's trivial to reproduce and can be easily deployed from a random flake. "Confidentiality: Low" also seems untrue since it's precisely about builds being able to read things they shouldn't be able to. it might not be a very impactful vulnerability, but there's no way it's a CVSS 1.0. note that CVSS quantifies impact of the vulnerability if you run into it, not how likely you are to run into it. | 15:58:40 |
| .. | https://www.tweag.io/blog/2022-09-13-nixpkgs-graph/ | 16:01:14 |
| .. | * https://www.tweag.io/blog/2022-09-13-nixpkgs-graph/ K900 | 16:01:31 |
| K900 | That's not dependency resolution | 16:01:35 |
 puck | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I believe the CVSS in https://github.com/NixOS/nix/security/advisories/GHSA-wf4c-57rh-9pjg is inaccurate. "Attack Complexity: High" seems inaccurate as it's trivial to reproduce and can be easily deployed from a random flake. "Confidentiality: Low" also seems untrue since it's precisely about builds being able to read things they shouldn't be able to. it might not be a very impactful vulnerability, but there's no way it's a CVSS 1.0. note that CVSS quantifies impact of the vulnerability if you run into it, not how likely you are to run into it. i ..think it should probably be UI:N, and AC:L? i also don't think the bug itself would be AT:P | 16:01:46 |
| K900 | That's just computing dependencies between packages | 16:01:50 |
| K900 | Which is not the slow part | 16:01:55 |
| K900 | And never was | 16:01:57 |
| K900 | And is in fact very fast | 16:02:01 |
| K900 | Specifically because it does not involve "resolution" | 16:02:09 |
| emily | I think AT:P implies that the actual attacker has to be present at the machine, so I agree that that part is inaccurate too. | 16:02:21 |
| puck | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I think AT:P implies that the actual attacker has to be present at the machine, so I agree that that part is inaccurate too. that'd be AV:P i think | 16:02:41 |
| puck | AT:P just means the system has to be misconfigured | 16:02:49 |
| emily | sigh why do tehy have to use inscrutable acronyms | 16:03:05 |
| emily | * sigh why do they have to use inscrutable acronyms | 16:03:12 |
| .. | are there areas where they need mathematical optimization? | 16:03:26 |
| emily | in any case it's definitely not 1.0 and I hope the CVSS score wasn't just massaged to make it so… | 16:03:29 |
| emily | In reply to @khaleghi:matrix.org
are there areas where they need mathematical optimization? we explicitly don't do any kind of SAT or anything | 16:03:59 |
| emily | unlike almost every other package manager :) | 16:04:05 |
| K900 | In reply to@khaleghi:matrix.org
are there areas where they need mathematical optimization? Not really, no | 16:04:19 |
| K900 | At this point the slowest part of Nix is, by a long shot, the interpreter itself | 16:04:32 |
| K900 | And that needs less fancy maths and more rolling up sleeves and profiling for a week | 16:04:50 |
| puck | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
in any case it's definitely not 1.0 and I hope the CVSS score wasn't just massaged to make it so… if i change it to CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N it ends up a 2.4 | 16:04:58 |
| puck | the big issue is this vuln kinda depends on other vulns, and the sandbox isn't really default | 16:06:23 |
