-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add bcprov test dependency due to CVE #1313
Conversation
the link is 404 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure we should care about all CVEs in test dependencies.
Should we add a comment specifying when we can remove this override again?
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels. (do we need to request sbt-dependency-submission@v3 to be whitelisted at Infra?)
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels. (do we need to request sbt-dependency-submission@v3 to be whitelisted at Infra?)
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels. (do we need to request sbt-dependency-submission@v3 to be whitelisted at Infra?)
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels.
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels.
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels.
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels.
Currently, dependency-submission would submit all dependencies to https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot , including test dependencies. We then added explicit dependencies to the build to squash warnings about outdated test dependencies (apache#1181, apache#1313 and apache#1344). With version 3, sbt-dependency-submission now supports ignoring scopes. This PR proposes to ignore the test scope, and remove the explicit dependencies from the build. Of course, we want our developers to be secure as much as our users. From that perspective you could say we'd want to remove 'insecure' dependencies even from the test scope. In practice, however, I think it's really unlikely that a vulnerability in a test scope dependency would lead to a realistic attack on a developer. For that reason, I think ignoring this scope for dependency-submission and keeping the old dependencies in the build removes some development friction, which balances out the risk of testing with outdated dependencies. If there'd be a 'malicious' dependency out there, I expect we'd learn about it through other channels.
see https://github.com/apache/pekko/security/dependabot/101