On 12/17/2013 02:02 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 12/17/2013 08:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:
On 12/17/2013 12:08 PM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
given that this is a security related change, one could argue that
security
fixes should be ok to go in a minor version, even if they break BC.
This was my thought process. In my mind the RFC is about improving
security
for users who don't know any better. I'm hoping to avoid the "Are we
allowed to break BC?" discussion.
Okay, but nobody is asking the question "are we allowed to break
compatiblity for no good reason", because it's a silly question.
Adding a CA file to the distribution is exceedingly simple, but this is
not
a silver bullet. For example, the Mozilla CA file used by cURL is
usually
updated three or four times a year. Even when bundling a CA file it
would
only be a matter of time before a distribution's version was out of
date.
In the end we can only do so much before users must bear the weight of
maintaining an acceptable level of security themselves.
So then bundle it, doing something is much better than doing nothing,
there are plenty of opportunities to update the cafile with minor versions,
the package maintainers will likely solve the stale cafile problem for us
on the major distributions, when they see we are actually doing something
about it ...
It really does not seem sensible to purposefully break compatibility
when it can be retained easily, the vote is going to be split with no clear
outcome doing no good for anyone. Reduce the options to two if you want to
actually move forward.
That's enough from me, gonna go find something to break :)
Don't forget that bundling a CA file also means that take the burden of
keeping it up-to-date to our shoulders.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, but if we do then we have to make
sure that we understand the implications.
Even if we take the "easy" path, and select an already existing CA bundle
(eg. Mozilla), we have to make sure to always ship the up-to-date version
and there could be events, when we would need to create a release only
because some CA incident (like what happened with DigiNotar in 2011 which
forced the everybody shipping CA bundles to update their bundle to remove
this CA from it's list of trusted CAs).
As I've said, I'm only stating this so everybody can understand the
implications before voting.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l -
http://tyrael.hu
Regarding the alteration of voting options Joe requested ...
I do believe approving the patch without bundling a CA file is a valid
option. As Ferenc mentioned there are potential maintenance issues with
including a CA file and I do not feel comfortable forcing the hand of the
release managers on this point. The vote exists between "yes" and "yes with
a bundled file" for this reason to tease out what's best for PHP in this
scenario. Please make sure you understand the ramifications of your choice
before voting.
I do want to preemptively address the idea that not including a CA file
would somehow cause disastrous BC breakage. In my opinion this could not be
further from the truth. APIs are not changing. The return value is already
FALSE with a warning generated on a connection or transfer failure. Code
should already have error checking in place for this potential scenario
because socket transfers are never guaranteed (maybe your ethernet cable is
unplugged).
The only difference this patch makes is to expand the reasons why a
transfer can return FALSE with an E_WARNING to include "you're doing
something dangerous." As far as BC breakage goes, this is as
backward-compatible as a BC break could possibly be.
I wouldn't say it isn't a BC break, as there are a plenty of code out there
which could/will break after this change.
- If we don't ship/include a CA bundle, every stream connection for
ssl://, https:// or ftps:// resource will fail before the user changes
his/her php.ini
- even if we do include a CA bundle, there are a bunch of code which
connects to https:// urls using self-signed certs, and for some of
those, there is no CA file available, so you won't be able to get your code
functioning again without rewriting your code to explicitly disable peer
verification.
Those are BC breaks, and I'm pretty sure that this would/will affect a lot
of users.
But I do think, that in this case the BC break could be acceptable, so I'm
looking forward to the results.
Note that the distro maintainers tend to hate when we bundle stuff like
this. We have this same situation with the Olsen tz. They much prefer
having a single place to update resources that are needed by multiple
applications like the ca cert bundle and the Olsen tz db. So, for most
of our users (assuming most of our users rely on distro-packaged
versions of php) I don't think it actually matters whether we ship the
ca bundle or not. The distros are going override this decision and point
to the distro-level bundle much like many of them have done with the
timezone file.
-Rasmus