• taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I am familiar with CVSS and its upsides and downsides. I am talking about the amount of resources required to determine that kind of information for every single bug, resources that far exceed the resources required to fix the bug.

    New bugs are introduced in backports as well, think of that Debian issue where generated keys had flaws for years because of some backport. The idea that any version, whether the same you have been using, the latest one or a backported one, will not gain new exploits or new known bugs is not something that holds up in practice.

    • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m arguing that old versions don’t get new vulnerabilities. I’m saying that just because a CVE exists it does not necessarily make a system immediately vulnerable, because many CVEs rely on theoretical scenarios or specific attack vectors that are not exploitable in a hardened system or that have limited impact.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        And I am saying that that information you are referring to is unknown for any given CVE unless it is unlocked by some investment of effort that usually far exceeds the effort to actually fix it and we already don’t have enough resources to fix all the bugs, much less assess the impact of every bug.

        Assessing the impact on the other hand is an activity that is only really useful for two things

        • a risk / impact assessment of an update to decide if you want to update or not
        • determining if you were theoretically vulnerable in the past

        You could add prioritizing fixes to that list but then, as mentioned, impact assessments are usually more work than actual fixes and spending more effort prioritizing than actually fixing makes no sense.