The cvechecker application will support delta file processing as well as higher version matching with its next release. The functionality is currently in version control and I still have to work out quite a few things before they can go live, but the functionality is there.

Now why would these functions be interesting?

Well, first of all, by supporting delta file processing I am able to use cvechecker with Portage' hooks. Every time a package is unmerged, cvechecker will remove the files from its database (so that it doesn't get picked up in vulnerability reports anymore). Similarly, every time a package is emerged, the files are stored in the database. There is no need to perform a full system scan every time the system has been updated.

Second, being able to report on higher version vulnerabilities the tool can now also trap potential issues with reports that do not contain the exact version as detected by cvechecker but can be relevant. For instance, a version detection of Linux 2.6.35-hardened-r1 might otherwise not be noticed (for instance because no CVE is reported on the hardened-r1 release) yet a CVE report on 2.6.35 or even 2.6.36-rc4 might be of interest. By using the higher version reporting, you'll be notified of this as well. Same goes for vulnerability reports on an entire branch (say Python 2.4), especially when those branches are not actively being developed anymore (so the vulnerability remains). And another benefit is that you might be informed about higher versions of particular software being available ;-)

Now, a very quick warning before everybody cheers and does the penguin dance: enabling higher version reports will give you lots of false hits:

  • First of all, detecting if a version is higher than another version isn't easy. The tool is able to put 0.9.8 - 0.9.8a - 0.9.8b in the right order, as well as 0.5.1_alpha - 0.5.1_beta - 0.5.1, but the same algorithm will make 2.6.35-hardened-r1 be less than 2.6.35, and a secure 0.9.8 version will be seen vulnerable when 1.0.0_alpha has a vulnerability.
  • Second of all, official CVE entries don't always provide a good version match themselves. For instance, CVE-2008-4609 has been configured that Linux Kernel 390 and Linux Kernel 3.25 (I know those are not correct version numbers - my point exactly) are vulnerable. So yes, 390 is (a lot) higher than 2.6.35...
  • Third, many tools use parallel development branches. Take Python for instance: even when version 2.6.5 would have no vulnerabilities and 2.7 or 3.2 alpha releases do, it will still report the 2.6.5 one as having a potential vulnerability. This seems to give (for me at least) the most false positives of all.

I still don't know how to deal with this huge amount of false positives - comments are always welcome.


Comments

To comment as a guest, use "Or sign up with disqus" and then select the "I'd rather post as guest" option.

comments powered by Disqus