Problem: we lack an (internal) definition of severity for security issues

Solution: attempt to define a reasonable one
This commit is contained in:
Luca Boccassi 2020-05-09 12:58:01 +01:00
parent 675a007d74
commit c33da0ea5b

View File

@ -22,6 +22,29 @@ please send a GPG encrypted email with the details to the maintainers:
| Doron Somech | somdoron@gmail.com | E0B0 E3D1 55DD 6ED6 71FB 2B79 D0B9 CC44 867D 8F3D | | Doron Somech | somdoron@gmail.com | E0B0 E3D1 55DD 6ED6 71FB 2B79 D0B9 CC44 867D 8F3D |
| Luca Boccassi | luca.boccassi@gmail.com | A9EA 9081 724F FAE0 484C 35A1 A81C EA22 BC8C 7E2E | | Luca Boccassi | luca.boccassi@gmail.com | A9EA 9081 724F FAE0 484C 35A1 A81C EA22 BC8C 7E2E |
## Internal severity classification
We will attempt to follow this general policy when assigning a severity to
security issues. These are guidelines more than rules, and as such end
results might vary.
| Severity | Definition |
| -------- | ---------- |
| CRITICAL | endpoints using STRONG authentication are SILENTLY affected |
| HIGH | endpoints using STRONG authentication are VISIBLY affected |
| MODERATE | endpoints NOT using STRONG authentication are SILENTLY affected |
| LOW | endpoints NOT using STRONG authentication are VISIBLY affected |
STRONG authentication means transports that use cryptography, for example CURVE
and TLS.
VISIBLY affected means that platform owners are likely to immediately notice
misbehaviours, like crashes or loss of connectivity for legitimate peers.
SILENTLY affected means that without close inspection, platform owners are
unlikely to notice misbehaviours, like remote code executions or data exfiltration.
### Public keys ### Public keys
<details> <details>
<summary>Doron Somech</summary> <summary>Doron Somech</summary>