llvm dev - Jun 2020 - [RFC] LLVM Security Group and Process

Great idea! Sign me up, please!

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 16:59, JF Bastien via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Great! On the Apple side, we’ll propose Oliver Hunt (clang team) and Scotty
Bolin (product security team), CC’ed to this email.
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 6:50 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>
wrote:
>
> Thank you for progressing this, JF!
>
> As vendor contacts for Arm, myself (kristof.beyls at arm.com) and Peter
Smith (peter.smith at arm.com) are interested in being part of the Security
Group.
> We’re also interested in helping in the forming of this group.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kristof
>
> On 11 Jun 2020, at 17:39, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi security-minded folks!
>
> I published this RFC quite a while ago, and have received good feedback
from y’all, as well as enthusiasm from a few folks whose distribution would
benefit from having a security process for LLVM. Arnaud and the Board approved
the patch a few weeks ago, I’ll therefore commit it in the next few days and
start moving the missing parts forward.
>
> Some folks have self-identified as being interested in being part of the
original Security Group. Let’s take this opportunity to hear from anyone else
who’s interested: please speak up!
>
> Thanks,
>
> JF
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:58 AM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hello compiler enthusiasts,
>
>
> The Apple LLVM team would like to propose that a new a security process and
an associated private LLVM Security Group be created under the umbrella of the
LLVM project.
>
> A draft proposal for how we could organize such a group and what its
process could be is available on Phabricator. The proposal starts with a list of
goals for the process and Security Group, repeated here:
>
> The LLVM Security Group has the following goals:
>
> Allow LLVM contributors and security researchers to disclose
security-related issues affecting the LLVM project to members of the LLVM
community.
> Organize fixes, code reviews, and release management for said issues.
> Allow distributors time to investigate and deploy fixes before wide
dissemination of vulnerabilities or mitigation shortcomings.
> Ensure timely notification and release to vendors who package and
distribute LLVM-based toolchains and projects.
> Ensure timely notification to users of LLVM-based toolchains whose compiled
code is security-sensitive, through the CVE process.
>
>
> We’re looking for answers to the following questions:
>
> On this list: Should we create a security group and process?
> On this list: Do you agree with the goals listed in the proposal?
> On this list: at a high-level, what do you think should be done
differently, and what do you think is exactly right in the draft proposal?
> On the Phabricator code review: going into specific details, what do you
think should be done differently, and what do you think is exactly right in the
draft proposal?
> On this list: to help understand where you’re coming from with your
feedback, it would be helpful to state how you personally approach this issue:
>
> Are you an LLVM contributor (individual or representing a company)?
> Are you involved with security aspects of LLVM (if so, which)?
> Do you maintain significant downstream LLVM changes?
> Do you package and deploy LLVM for others to use (if so, to how many
people)?
> Is your LLVM distribution based on the open-source releases?
> How often do you usually deploy LLVM?
> How fast can you deploy an update?
> Does your LLVM distribution handle untrusted inputs, and what kind?
> What’s the threat model for your LLVM distribution?
>
>
> Other open-source projects have security-related groups and processes. They
structure their group very differently from one another. This proposal borrows
from some of these projects’ processes. A few examples:
>
> https://webkit.org/security-policy/
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/docs/security/faq.md
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security
> https://www.openbsd.org/security.html
> https://security-team.debian.org/security_tracker.html
> https://www.python.org/news/security/
>
> When providing feedback, it would be great to hear if you’ve dealt with
these or other projects’ processes, what works well, and what can be done
better.
>
>
> I’ll go first in answering my own questions above:
>
> Yes! We should create a security group and process.
> We agree with the goals listed.
> We think the proposal is exactly right, but would like to hear the
community’s opinions.
> Here’s how we approach the security of LLVM:
>
> I contribute to LLVM as an Apple employee.
> I’ve been involved in a variety of LLVM security issues, from automatic
variable initialization to security-related diagnostics, as well as deploying
these mitigations to internal codebases.
> We maintain significant downstream changes.
> We package and deploy LLVM, both internally and externally, for a variety
of purposes, including the clang, Swift, and mobile GPU shader compilers.
> Our LLVM distribution is not directly derived from the open-source release.
In all cases, all non-upstream public patches for our releases are available in
repository branches at https://github.com/apple.
> We have many deployments of LLVM whose release schedules vary
significantly. The LLVM build deployed as part of Xcode historically has one
major release per year, followed by roughly one minor release every 2 months.
Other releases of LLVM are also security-sensitive and don’t follow the same
schedule.
> This depends on which release of LLVM is affected.
> Yes, our distribution sometimes handles untrusted input.
> The threat model is highly variable depending on the particular language
front-ends being considered.
>
> Apple is involved with a variety of open-source projects and their
disclosures. For example, we frequently work with the WebKit community to handle
security issues through their process.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> JF
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Hi everyone!

I'm very glad this is moving forward! Just a week or two ago there was an
SLH bug that really should've been sent to a group like the one that's
being created here. Thanks a bunch, JF, for driving this!

I'd like to be in this group representing the C++ security team at Google.
I maintain two speculative execution side channel attack passes:
Speculative Load Hardening and Speculative Execution Side Effect
Suppression.

I'd also like the mailing list alias llvm-security at google.com to be in
this
group. The list is restricted within Google to folks who need to be
involved in security response related to LLVM.

Are there objections to this? I did read the proposal and it looks like
it's okay for members of the group to share vulnerabilities/reports within
their organization on a need-to-know basis, however it's possible a set up
like this is not what was intended by what was written in the proposal, so
I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks again to everyone involved in setting this up!

Zola Bridges


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:56 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Great idea! Sign me up, please!
>
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 16:59, JF Bastien via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Great! On the Apple side, we’ll propose Oliver Hunt (clang team) and
> Scotty Bolin (product security team), CC’ed to this email.
> >
> >
> > On Jun 12, 2020, at 6:50 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at
arm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for progressing this, JF!
> >
> > As vendor contacts for Arm, myself (kristof.beyls at arm.com) and
Peter
> Smith (peter.smith at arm.com) are interested in being part of the Security
> Group.
> > We’re also interested in helping in the forming of this group.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kristof
> >
> > On 11 Jun 2020, at 17:39, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi security-minded folks!
> >
> > I published this RFC quite a while ago, and have received good
feedback
> from y’all, as well as enthusiasm from a few folks whose distribution would
> benefit from having a security process for LLVM. Arnaud and the Board
> approved the patch a few weeks ago, I’ll therefore commit it in the next
> few days and start moving the missing parts forward.
> >
> > Some folks have self-identified as being interested in being part of
the
> original Security Group. Let’s take this opportunity to hear from anyone
> else who’s interested: please speak up!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JF
> >
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:58 AM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello compiler enthusiasts,
> >
> >
> > The Apple LLVM team would like to propose that a new a security
process
> and an associated private LLVM Security Group be created under the umbrella
> of the LLVM project.
> >
> > A draft proposal for how we could organize such a group and what its
> process could be is available on Phabricator. The proposal starts with a
> list of goals for the process and Security Group, repeated here:
> >
> > The LLVM Security Group has the following goals:
> >
> > Allow LLVM contributors and security researchers to disclose
> security-related issues affecting the LLVM project to members of the LLVM
> community.
> > Organize fixes, code reviews, and release management for said issues.
> > Allow distributors time to investigate and deploy fixes before wide
> dissemination of vulnerabilities or mitigation shortcomings.
> > Ensure timely notification and release to vendors who package and
> distribute LLVM-based toolchains and projects.
> > Ensure timely notification to users of LLVM-based toolchains whose
> compiled code is security-sensitive, through the CVE process.
> >
> >
> > We’re looking for answers to the following questions:
> >
> > On this list: Should we create a security group and process?
> > On this list: Do you agree with the goals listed in the proposal?
> > On this list: at a high-level, what do you think should be done
> differently, and what do you think is exactly right in the draft proposal?
> > On the Phabricator code review: going into specific details, what do
you
> think should be done differently, and what do you think is exactly right in
> the draft proposal?
> > On this list: to help understand where you’re coming from with your
> feedback, it would be helpful to state how you personally approach this
> issue:
> >
> > Are you an LLVM contributor (individual or representing a company)?
> > Are you involved with security aspects of LLVM (if so, which)?
> > Do you maintain significant downstream LLVM changes?
> > Do you package and deploy LLVM for others to use (if so, to how many
> people)?
> > Is your LLVM distribution based on the open-source releases?
> > How often do you usually deploy LLVM?
> > How fast can you deploy an update?
> > Does your LLVM distribution handle untrusted inputs, and what kind?
> > What’s the threat model for your LLVM distribution?
> >
> >
> > Other open-source projects have security-related groups and processes.
> They structure their group very differently from one another. This proposal
> borrows from some of these projects’ processes. A few examples:
> >
> > https://webkit.org/security-policy/
> >
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/docs/security/faq.md
> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security
> > https://www.openbsd.org/security.html
> > https://security-team.debian.org/security_tracker.html
> > https://www.python.org/news/security/
> >
> > When providing feedback, it would be great to hear if you’ve dealt
with
> these or other projects’ processes, what works well, and what can be done
> better.
> >
> >
> > I’ll go first in answering my own questions above:
> >
> > Yes! We should create a security group and process.
> > We agree with the goals listed.
> > We think the proposal is exactly right, but would like to hear the
> community’s opinions.
> > Here’s how we approach the security of LLVM:
> >
> > I contribute to LLVM as an Apple employee.
> > I’ve been involved in a variety of LLVM security issues, from
automatic
> variable initialization to security-related diagnostics, as well as
> deploying these mitigations to internal codebases.
> > We maintain significant downstream changes.
> > We package and deploy LLVM, both internally and externally, for a
> variety of purposes, including the clang, Swift, and mobile GPU shader
> compilers.
> > Our LLVM distribution is not directly derived from the open-source
> release. In all cases, all non-upstream public patches for our releases are
> available in repository branches at https://github.com/apple.
> > We have many deployments of LLVM whose release schedules vary
> significantly. The LLVM build deployed as part of Xcode historically has
> one major release per year, followed by roughly one minor release every 2
> months. Other releases of LLVM are also security-sensitive and don’t follow
> the same schedule.
> > This depends on which release of LLVM is affected.
> > Yes, our distribution sometimes handles untrusted input.
> > The threat model is highly variable depending on the particular
language
> front-ends being considered.
> >
> > Apple is involved with a variety of open-source projects and their
> disclosures. For example, we frequently work with the WebKit community to
> handle security issues through their process.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JF
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200617/bcabc13f/attachment-0001.html>

Thanks Zola,

I’d rather have point-contact people, instead of having mailing lists. I have a
few goals with this:
Listing particular people makes it clear who’s on the hook from your
organization
These people can still communicate internally, but are responsible to ensure
that the internal folks know what the LLVM process and disclosure restrictions
are
Listing a limited number of specific people helps make this part of their
official work within their company, and ideally those folks make sure they’re
not all unavailable at the same time
Mailing lists tend to attract chatter and lose focus

That being said, there’s certainly convenience to having a list. I’m not sure
that convenience warrants the tradeoffs :)

LMK what you think!

JF

> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Zola Bridges <zbrid at google.com>
wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone!
> 
> I'm very glad this is moving forward! Just a week or two ago there was
an SLH bug that really should've been sent to a group like the one
that's being created here. Thanks a bunch, JF, for driving this!
> 
> I'd like to be in this group representing the C++ security team at
Google. I maintain two speculative execution side channel attack passes:
Speculative Load Hardening and Speculative Execution Side Effect Suppression.
> 
> I'd also like the mailing list alias llvm-security at google.com
<mailto:llvm-security at google.com> to be in this group. The list is
restricted within Google to folks who need to be involved in security response
related to LLVM.
> 
> Are there objections to this? I did read the proposal and it looks like
it's okay for members of the group to share vulnerabilities/reports within
their organization on a need-to-know basis, however it's possible a set up
like this is not what was intended by what was written in the proposal, so
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone involved in setting this up!
> 
> Zola Bridges
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:56 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Great idea! Sign me up, please!
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 16:59, JF Bastien via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Great! On the Apple side, we’ll propose Oliver Hunt (clang team) and
Scotty Bolin (product security team), CC’ed to this email.
> >
> >
> > On Jun 12, 2020, at 6:50 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at
arm.com <mailto:Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for progressing this, JF!
> >
> > As vendor contacts for Arm, myself (kristof.beyls at arm.com
<mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>) and Peter Smith (peter.smith at arm.com
<mailto:peter.smith at arm.com>) are interested in being part of the
Security Group.
> > We’re also interested in helping in the forming of this group.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kristof
> >
> > On 11 Jun 2020, at 17:39, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi security-minded folks!
> >
> > I published this RFC quite a while ago, and have received good
feedback from y’all, as well as enthusiasm from a few folks whose distribution
would benefit from having a security process for LLVM. Arnaud and the Board
approved the patch a few weeks ago, I’ll therefore commit it in the next few
days and start moving the missing parts forward.
> >
> > Some folks have self-identified as being interested in being part of
the original Security Group. Let’s take this opportunity to hear from anyone
else who’s interested: please speak up!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JF
> >
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:58 AM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello compiler enthusiasts,
> >
> >
> > The Apple LLVM team would like to propose that a new a security
process and an associated private LLVM Security Group be created under the
umbrella of the LLVM project.
> >
> > A draft proposal for how we could organize such a group and what its
process could be is available on Phabricator. The proposal starts with a list of
goals for the process and Security Group, repeated here:
> >
> > The LLVM Security Group has the following goals:
> >
> > Allow LLVM contributors and security researchers to disclose
security-related issues affecting the LLVM project to members of the LLVM
community.
> > Organize fixes, code reviews, and release management for said issues.
> > Allow distributors time to investigate and deploy fixes before wide
dissemination of vulnerabilities or mitigation shortcomings.
> > Ensure timely notification and release to vendors who package and
distribute LLVM-based toolchains and projects.
> > Ensure timely notification to users of LLVM-based toolchains whose
compiled code is security-sensitive, through the CVE process.
> >
> >
> > We’re looking for answers to the following questions:
> >
> > On this list: Should we create a security group and process?
> > On this list: Do you agree with the goals listed in the proposal?
> > On this list: at a high-level, what do you think should be done
differently, and what do you think is exactly right in the draft proposal?
> > On the Phabricator code review: going into specific details, what do
you think should be done differently, and what do you think is exactly right in
the draft proposal?
> > On this list: to help understand where you’re coming from with your
feedback, it would be helpful to state how you personally approach this issue:
> >
> > Are you an LLVM contributor (individual or representing a company)?
> > Are you involved with security aspects of LLVM (if so, which)?
> > Do you maintain significant downstream LLVM changes?
> > Do you package and deploy LLVM for others to use (if so, to how many
people)?
> > Is your LLVM distribution based on the open-source releases?
> > How often do you usually deploy LLVM?
> > How fast can you deploy an update?
> > Does your LLVM distribution handle untrusted inputs, and what kind?
> > What’s the threat model for your LLVM distribution?
> >
> >
> > Other open-source projects have security-related groups and processes.
They structure their group very differently from one another. This proposal
borrows from some of these projects’ processes. A few examples:
> >
> > https://webkit.org/security-policy/
<https://webkit.org/security-policy/>
> >
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/docs/security/faq.md
<https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/docs/security/faq.md>
> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security>
> > https://www.openbsd.org/security.html
<https://www.openbsd.org/security.html>
> > https://security-team.debian.org/security_tracker.html
<https://security-team.debian.org/security_tracker.html>
> > https://www.python.org/news/security/
<https://www.python.org/news/security/>
> >
> > When providing feedback, it would be great to hear if you’ve dealt
with these or other projects’ processes, what works well, and what can be done
better.
> >
> >
> > I’ll go first in answering my own questions above:
> >
> > Yes! We should create a security group and process.
> > We agree with the goals listed.
> > We think the proposal is exactly right, but would like to hear the
community’s opinions.
> > Here’s how we approach the security of LLVM:
> >
> > I contribute to LLVM as an Apple employee.
> > I’ve been involved in a variety of LLVM security issues, from
automatic variable initialization to security-related diagnostics, as well as
deploying these mitigations to internal codebases.
> > We maintain significant downstream changes.
> > We package and deploy LLVM, both internally and externally, for a
variety of purposes, including the clang, Swift, and mobile GPU shader
compilers.
> > Our LLVM distribution is not directly derived from the open-source
release. In all cases, all non-upstream public patches for our releases are
available in repository branches at https://github.com/apple
<https://github.com/apple>.
> > We have many deployments of LLVM whose release schedules vary
significantly. The LLVM build deployed as part of Xcode historically has one
major release per year, followed by roughly one minor release every 2 months.
Other releases of LLVM are also security-sensitive and don’t follow the same
schedule.
> > This depends on which release of LLVM is affected.
> > Yes, our distribution sometimes handles untrusted input.
> > The threat model is highly variable depending on the particular
language front-ends being considered.
> >
> > Apple is involved with a variety of open-source projects and their
disclosures. For example, we frequently work with the WebKit community to handle
security issues through their process.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JF
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200617/d3c115c8/attachment.html>