[MIR] libemail-simple-perl ( libemail-mime-perl dependency as libmail-dmarc-perl dependency)
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
libemail-simple-perl (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
[Availability]
The package libemail-
The package libemail-
It currently builds and works for architectures: amd64 (all)
Link to package https:/
[Rationale]
The package libemail-
The package libemail-
our user base, but is important/helpful still because it is required as runtime dependency by libemail-mime-perl,
(MIR bug https:/
and this, in turn, is required as runtime dependency by libmail-dmarc-perl
( libmail-dmarc-perl is in the MIR process here: https:/
The package libemail-
[Security]
No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past.
No `suid` or `sgid` binaries.
No executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin`.
Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs.
Package does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024).
Package does not expose any external endpoints.
Package does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...);
it's a wrapper for other enconding perl modules.
[Quality assurance - function/usage]
The package works well right after install
[Quality assurance - maintenance]
The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu and does
not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs:
- Ubuntu (0) https:/
- Debian (0) https:/
- Upstream's bug tracker (5) https:/
+ Upstream's repo last activity:
- last commit: in main, Jan 9, 2023
- Issues without answer: 2, since Dec 16, 2021
- Updated issue: Feb 27, 2020
- fixed/closed/merged issue: Nov 3, 2020
The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support
[Quality assurance - testing]
The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails
it makes the build fail: https:/
dh_auto_test
make -j4 test TEST_VERBOSE=1
make[1]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>'
PERL_
The package runs an autopkgtest (via autodep8 using 'Testsuite: autopkgtest-
that runs essentialy the above build-time test suite. It is currently passing on
this list of architectures (amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x), except on i386: https:/
The package does have failing autopkgtests tests right now, but since
they always failed they are handled as "ignored failure", this is
because the package the test depends on pkg-perl-tools package that is not
build for i386 since focal.
[Quality assurance - packaging]
debian/watch is present and works.
debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field : Debian Perl Group <email address hidden> ( https:/
This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors
- recent build log of the package https:/
- full output from `lintian --pedantic` :
#source
❯ lintian -EvIL +pedantic --show-overrides
E: libemail-
W: libemail-
W: libemail-
#binary
❯ lintian -EvIL +pedantic --show-overrides ../libemail-
W: libemail-
X: libemail-
This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies.
The package will not be installed by default.
Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules: https:/
[UI standards]
Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation).
[Dependencies]
No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main.
[Standards compliance]
This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy (4.6.2)
[Maintenance/Owner]
Owning Team will be Ubuntu Server Team.
Team is not yet, but will subscribe to the package before promotion.
This does not use static builds.
This does not use vendored code.
This package is not rust based.
The package successfully built during the most recent test rebuild : https:/
[Background information]
The Package description explains the package well.
Upstream Name is Email-Simple .
Link to upstream project https:/
This has been in the archive since at least 2005 (1.9-1). It's never had a bug filed against it in Launchpad.
Related branches
- Lucas Kanashiro (community): Approve
- Canonical Server Reporter: Pending requested
-
Diff: 54 lines (+10/-0)1 file modifiedsubscriptions.yaml (+10/-0)
Changed in libemail-simple-perl (Ubuntu): | |
status: | Incomplete → New |
Changed in libemail-simple-perl (Ubuntu): | |
assignee: | nobody → Lukas Märdian (slyon) |
tags: | added: sec-2674 |
Changed in libemail-simple-perl (Ubuntu): | |
assignee: | Ubuntu Security Team (ubuntu-security) → nobody |
Review for Source Package: libemail- simple- perl
[Summary]
A Perl module to parse RFC2822 email headers and message format.
MIR team ACK under the constraint to resolve the below listed
required TODOs and as much as possible having a look at the
recommended TODOs.
This does need a security review, so I'll assign ubuntu-security
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: libemail- simple- perl
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: None
Notes:
#0 I'm requesting security review, due to the package parsing random email data.
Required TODOs:
#1 libmailtools-perl looks like a potential duplicate
=> Please differentiate the two or consider if this could be used instead.
Recommended TODOs:
#2 The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted
#3 Upstream & Debian/Ubuntu update history is sporadic
=> Maybe we can do a better job of at least packaging new versions in a timely
manner, once this is in main. There are not too frequent releases upstream.
[Duplication] perl,libemail- address- perl,libcourrie l-perl, libmail- rfc822- address- perl}
$ rmadison -c main -s mantic {libmailtools-
libmailtools-perl | 2.21-2 | mantic | source, all
Problems:
- libmailtools-perl looks like a potential duplicate, could you please differentiate the two or consider if this could be used instead?
[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
- SRCPKG checked with `check-mir`
- all dependencies can be found in `seeded-in-ubuntu` (already in main)
- none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends
and Recommends) that are present after build are not in main
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
more tests now.
Problems: None
[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
- no embedded source present
- no static linking
- does not have unexpected Built-Using entries
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- not a rust package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
Problems: None
[Security]
OK:
- history of CVEs does not look concerning
- does not run a daemon as root
- does not use webkit1,2
- does not use lib*v8 directly
- does not expose any external endpoint (port/socket/... or similar)
- does not use centralized online accounts
- does not integrate arbitrary javascript into the desktop
- does not deal with system authentication (eg, pam), etc)
- does not deal with security attestation (secure boot, tpm, signatures)
- does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates, signing, ...)
Problems:
- does not parse data formats (emails, headers, RFC2822) from an untrusted source.
- does not process arbitrary web content (can emails be considered as such?)
[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- does have a test suite that runs at build time
- test suite fails will fail the build upon error.
- does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency
- Not a Python package
- Not a Go package
Problems: None
[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does not carr...