I did know that the external version string did say nothing, and that patches is back ported. The link to Published SUSE Linux security updates is just what I needed to demonstrate they are wrong. Thanks! -- Regards Klaus Den 05-10-2017 kl. 11:00 skrev Andrei Borzenkov:

Check by version string is completely meaningless as security patches are commonly backported. You need to request CVE numbers that are reported and check whether these CVE are fixed; either they are explicitly mentioned in changelog or https://www.suse.com/de-de/security/cve/ would be starting point.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Klaus Vink Slott <list-s@vink-slott.dk> wrote:

...

Hi guys

I need a little help here: Based on a scanning from the national CERT my security officer claims that I am running outdated software. ...

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05-10-2017 kl. 11:16 Dave Plater wrote:

...

I need a little help here: Based on a scanning from the national CERT my security officer claims that I am running outdated software. The relevant information is contained in the rpm changelog. To query this use, for instance apache2 "rpm -q --changelog apache2|less" The use of less is needed due to the long history. The changes have a record of every CVE fixed and the openSUSE bug reference - boo#bugnumber.

Thanks Dave, that is even better as I can simply grep on the CVE numbers they claim a to be vulnerabilities on my system. Like: me@server:~> rpm -q --changelog apache2|grep CVE-2017-9788 * CVE-2017-9788 [bsc#1048576] + apache2-CVE-2017-9788.patch Nice :-) -- Regards Klaus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05-10-2017 15:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2017-10-05 09:32, Klaus Vink Slott wrote:

...

Hi guys

I need a little help here: Based on a scanning from the national CERT my security officer claims that I am running outdated software.

...

Any security "scanning" based on packages release versions on openSUSE is absurd, and your security officer should know it.

You would surprised if you knew what we have to deal with in an big organization like ours (University of Copenhagen). Actually the security guy is alright but not with a deep technical background. I am a bit more disturbed about the Danish CERT forcing us to respond to useless "security report" like the mentioned. The report simply stated the returned version string and listed all the CVE's between that and the current version. -- Regards Klaus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2017-10-06 21:14, John Andersen wrote:

On 10/05/2017 06:22 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Any security "scanning" based on packages release versions on openSUSE is absurd, and your security officer should know it.

Why should they know this piece of trivia on a "Community" Linux version that is experiencing decreasing market share year by year?

Because it has been the published strategy for *decades*?

Version numbers exist for a reason.

Opensuse's method of patching but leaving the number the same is just lazy (and dangerous). They should be applying community pressure to those packages that use EQUAL in their dependencies rather than GREATER OR EQUAL unless there is a clearly demonstrated reason that can't possibly work.

No way.

Backward compatibility works in the vast majority of cases until or unless you run into major version issues. (QT4-->QT5). And THOSE are better handled by package systems than fudging version numbers.

I'm not aware of any other distro that does it the Opensuse way. And it means a huge paper chase just to check if a patch has been applied.

If Opensuse is moving toward a rolling release, this practice has to stop, and a more sane and standardized approach has to be taken. The world can't be expected to keep track of the idiosyncrasies of each linux distro.

openSUSE _LEAP_ is *not* moving toward a rolling release. Tumbleweed is a rolling release, and there the policy is reversed and packages are updated to the newest package available. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

On 2017-10-06 23:03, Christopher Myers wrote:

On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 22:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Version numbers exist for a reason. Opensuse's method of patching but leaving the number the same is just lazy (and dangerous). They should be applying community pressure to those packages that use EQUAL in their dependencies rather than GREATER OR EQUAL unless there is a clearly demonstrated reason that can't possibly work.

...

No way.

I was under the impression that pretty much all of the standard enterprise vendors worked this same way? Eg., SLES doesn't change version numbers, but backports the patches into the baseline versions of the packages to minimize the risk of something suddenly blowing up since the requirements can't be met. And since openSuSE is basically the origination for most things SLES, why would we expect anything different?

Exactly. Not only SLES and Leap, but the previous SuSE/Novell/SUSE stable versions did the same. For decades: the 1990's, the 2000's, the 2010's... nothing new here. Only Factory, now Tumbleweed, works differently. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)