[Buildroot] CVEs not matching buildroot packages

Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com
Tue Feb 25 10:29:43 UTC 2020


Hello Michael,

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:19:20 +0100
Michael Walle <michael at walle.cc> wrote:

> > LINUX_CPE_VENDOR = linux
> > LINUX_CPE_PRODUCT = linux_kernel  
> 
> I've left this out on purpose for simplicity ;)

OK.

> You could assume that
> the product name is unique and if its not you could add the vendor.
> Like for example:
> 
>   _CPE = linux_kernel
>   _CPE = linux:linux_kernel
> 
> eg. something like that:
>   pkg_CPE = [vendor:]product
> 
> Maybe it shouldn't be named CPE after all.. But I wanted to avoid
> this discussion for now, because it doesn't matter for the mapping
> problem ;)

Sure.

> > Yes. With the release-monitoring.org matching, we are able to know if
> > the match was found thanks to an explicit mapping of the Buildroot
> > distribution, or if it was found by "luck". That's the difference
> > between "found by distro" and "found by guess" in
> > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/stats/.  
> 
> Mhh, I don't think I can follow you here. Even if the package is found
> in release-monitoring.org it doesn't map to any CVEs/CPEs, does it?
> Or should this be an example on already existing fuzzy matching in
> buildroot?

Of course release-monitoring.org is completely unrelated from
CVEs/CPEs. I was mentioning release-monitoring.org as another case in
Buildroot where we have an issue with mapping Buildroot package names
with package/project names used by another entity.

But now that I think of it, why not rely a bit more on
release-monitoring.org after all? We could add a NVD distribution to
release-monitoring.org, and use it to store the mapping between
release-monitoring.org projects and their corresponding CPE IDs.

Then, Buildroot can query release-monitoring.org to find the CPE IDs.
One advantage of this approach is that this CPE ID information in
release-monitoring.org is not only useful for Buildroot, but
potentially for any other project using release-monitoring.org.

> > On the other hand, as explained above, the CPE information is not just
> > a package name, it's also a vendor name. So in practice the default of
> > using the package name doesn't really work.  
> 
> correct. unless you only match only parts of the CPE. But yes. If there
> would be a variable pkg_CPE which should contain the correct CPE, that
> would not work with the default.

Right.

> > One question is how will you distinguish packages that don't have any
> > CPE information because no CVE has ever been reported and therefore we
> > don't know which CPE vendor/product IDs will be used, and packages that
> > don't have CPE information because nobody has done the work of checking
> > the NVD database and adding the mapping.  
> 
> IMHO you cannot distiguish between these two, can you? Only if there 
> would be another CPE database for all software out there. Otherwise if there 
> is no CPE without and actual CVE, you can't do anything about it.

But then if we cannot distinguish between these two, it means there is
no point in forcing to have a <pkg>_CPE variable in each package. We
could rely on the default being the package name, as we're doing today,
and simply add <pkg>_CPE to override that default.

Your initial statement was:

>> BUT in my optinion there MUST NOT be a default value for this mapping,
>> because then you cannot distiguish between a package which just
>> uses the default name and a package which wasn't ever touched
>> regarding CVEs.

However, we will anyway never be able to distinguish between a package
that does not have a <pkg>_CPE variable because there is no known CPE
ID for this package, or because nobody did the effort.

> So the
> package would still be unknown. A counterexample, let's assume you add

> 
>   pkg_CPE = <unknown>
> 
> to indicate you've manually checked that there is currently no CVE
> matching this package and thus no CPE exists. Now, if there is actually
> a CVE/CPE the recipe won't be updated or worse the CVE matching would
> report nothing.

Indeed, that makes the whole <pkg>_CPE = <unknown> idea a bit useless.

> So I don't think you can do anything about that other than just saying
> we don't know anything about this package.
> 
> > Indeed, in our 2500+ packages, I'm pretty sure a significant number of
> > them never had any CVE, and therefore we have no idea what their CPE ID
> > would be.
> > 
> > Any idea on this ?  
> 
> Well I'd imaging three states in the stats:
>   - green, no CVE applies, we know the CPE
>   - red, CVE applies, we know the CPE
>   - yellow, CPE unknown, for whatever reason
> 
> If you're right with "a significant number of them never had any CVE",
> then many would be yellow. But I don't see any drawback on this. At the
> of the day what really matters are the packages in the red category.

No, because the yellow category could very well be "there are some
serious CVEs potentially affecting some packages, but nobody has added
the CPE ID information for the moment". So in the end, this yellow zone
is as dangerous as the red zone.

> And of course, how we can get as many packages as possibe from yellow
> to green/red.
> 
> What could also be done is a seperate script which loops over the CVEs
> and prints if no mapping to a buildroot package is found. So someone
> could look at it and say, oh this CVE looks like it should match one
> of our packages.

This is going to be horrible: the NVD database contains CVEs for
zillions of proprietary products that are completely irrelevant to
Buildroot. Looking through all of this data is going to be really
atrocious.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com


More information about the buildroot mailing list