Skip to content
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

Map packages against Google OSV #56

Open
3 tasks
ESultanik opened this issue Sep 15, 2021 · 2 comments
Open
3 tasks

Map packages against Google OSV #56

ESultanik opened this issue Sep 15, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@ESultanik
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Extend the it-depends API to associate vulnerabilities with packages
  • Use Google OSV as a data source to automatically assign vulnerabilities to packages
  • Provide a command line option similar to npm audit that reports the known vulnerabilities for a project
@ESultanik ESultanik added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 15, 2021
@hbrodin hbrodin self-assigned this Sep 16, 2021
@hbrodin
Copy link
Collaborator

hbrodin commented Sep 23, 2021

Google OSV have a term ecosystem that describes the context for a package. There are a number of them e.g. npm, PyPI, crates.io - these have fairly straightforward mapping to our resolvers (npm, pip and cargo).

How to map the the rest of our resolvers to their ecosystems is not straightforward.

I have not seen that many false positives so far since package names are kind of unique (especially in combination with version). One exception is tar:1.30.0+dfsg which returns information from the npm echosystem.

My suggestion is that we accept the current situation since it is not very clear how to get confidence in the mapping. E.g. what do a OSS-Fuzzing/*-project map to?

Any thoughts on this?

@ESultanik
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think that's reasonable. For resolvers that don't have an associated context in Google OSV, I think we can eventually switch to another source of information like CVEdb, although that might have more false positives

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants