GHSA advisories never use the OSV `FIX` reference type, though ~54% link a fix commit
まだ誰も着手していません。
評価
- 難易度
- 4/5
- 見積もり時間
- 3〜5日
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 38/100
- issue の種類
- 機能追加
- 明瞭さ
- 説明が足りない
- 活発さ
- 活発
- 領域
- security
調査の方向性
まず、公開されているエコシステムごとの OSV アーカイブに対して測定を再現し、例の GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm の参照を調査します。参照タイプがどのように割り当てられるかを判断するため、repository の advisory curation workflow を読みます。完了とは、maintainer が fix commit に FIX labels を付与するかどうか、および付与する場合の方法を決定し、workflow またはデータの変更内容が定義されている状態です。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
説明
Summary
Across every GHSA advisory published to the OSV feeds, the FIX reference type
is used zero times. Meanwhile about 54% of those advisories do link their fixing
commit, filed under WEB alongside vendor bulletins and NVD mirrors.
Consumers that want the fix commit therefore have to recognise it by URL shape
rather than by reading the reference type.
Measurement
Taken from the published OSV per-ecosystem archives at
https://storage.googleapis.com/osv-vulnerabilities/<ecosystem>/all.zip,
excluding withdrawn advisories. GHSA records only.
| Ecosystem feed | GHSA records | FIX refs |
Links a commit under another type |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | 7,020 | 0 | 3,634 (52%) |
| Maven | 6,956 | 0 | 3,268 (47%) |
| Packagist | 6,347 | 0 | 3,464 (55%) |
| PyPI | 6,016 | 0 | 3,776 (63%) |
| Go | 4,607 | 0 | 2,646 (57%) |
| crates.io | 1,475 | 0 | 650 (44%) |
| RubyGems | 1,082 | 0 | 639 (59%) |
| NuGet | 1,075 | 0 | 511 (48%) |
| Total | 34,578 | 0 | 18,588 (53.8%) |
The field is in use elsewhere
This is not a dead part of the schema. Other databases in the same feeds
populate it:
| Source | Records | Using FIX |
|---|---|---|
GO-* (Go vulndb) |
4,362 | 2,300 (52.7%) |
PYSEC-* (PyPA) |
7,214 | 2,146 (29.7%) |
GHSA-* |
34,578 | 0 (0.0%) |
Example
GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm (lodash, CVE-2021-23337) has 17 references. The fix commit
is present, typed WEB:
ADVISORY https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-23337
WEB https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commit/3469357cff396a26c363f8c1b5a91dde28ba4b1c
WEB https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2021.html
WEB https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-LODASH-1040724
PACKAGE https://github.com/lodash/lodash
...
Why it matters
A consumer wanting the fix commit currently has to pattern-match commit URLs
across GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket against every reference. That heuristic will
miss self-hosted forges and will occasionally match a link that is not the fix.
This came up while building tooling that uses fix-commit diffs to corroborate
advisory metadata. It is relevant to anything doing patch analysis, reachability
work, or backport detection.
The intent also seems to already be there. In an OpenJS discussion on affected
function naming, a maintainer noted:
For what it's worth we do tend to also provide fix commits when we can find
them which would allow someone to derive the file based location data.
That derivation would be considerably more reliable if the references were
labelled.
Question
Is there a reason FIX is not used, or is it simply not something the curation
workflow currently sets? I have no visibility into how references get typed, so
I may be missing context that makes this a non-issue.
Offer to help
If this is worth addressing and there is a useful way for me to contribute, I am
happy to. I recognise that a change spanning this many advisories is not
something to approach through the one-advisory-per-PR path, and that you likely
have better tooling for it than anything I would write.
So rather than guessing at an approach, I would rather ask: if you want this
fixed, what would actually help? I can share the measurement script, produce a
list of candidate advisories and the reference in each that looks like a fix
commit, or do something else entirely. Guidance welcome.
Reproducing the numbers
curl -O https://storage.googleapis.com/osv-vulnerabilities/npm/all.zip
mkdir feed && unzip -q all.zip -d feed
# count GHSA records, excluding withdrawn, whose references include type FIX
The same holds for every ecosystem archive. Happy to share the full script.
- 主要言語
- 言語のデータがありません
- スター
- 2.5k
- フォーク
- 772
- 平均マージ
- 3日 15時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 46
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
github/advisory-database のほかの issue
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 68/100
github/advisory-database#9255 ·
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 72/100
github/advisory-database#9164 · リアクション 1 件 ·
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 72/100
github/advisory-database#8994 ·
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 68/100
github/advisory-database#8898 · コメント 4 件 · リアクション 1 件 ·
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 72/100
github/advisory-database#8841 ·
github/advisory-database の issue をすべて見る
似ている issue
-
needs-triage
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 75/100
-
Nmap
難易度 1/5 1時間未満 初心者へのやさしさ 85/100
-
Mend: dependency security vulnerability untriaged
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 70/100
-
blocklist removal
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 65/100
MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect#296544 ·
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 70/100
Azure/azure-functions-docker#1257 ·