Bug 1787382
| Summary: | Add support for SHA-256/SHA512 signatures to sa-update | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla> | ||||
| Component: | spamassassin | Assignee: | Ondřej Lysoněk <olysonek> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Ondrej Mejzlik <omejzlik> | ||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | urgent | ||||||
| Version: | 7.7 | CC: | alan, cepheid, fkrska, k.macdonald, noc, olysonek, omejzlik, ondrejj, phil.randal, thozza | ||||
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Patch, TestCaseProvided, Triaged, ZStream | ||||
| Target Release: | 7.7 | Flags: | thozza:
mirror+
|
||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | spamassassin-3.4.0-5.el7 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | |||||||
| : | 1791820 (view as bug list) | Environment: | |||||
| Last Closed: | 2020-09-11 07:39:31 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1780662, 1791820 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Robert Scheck
2020-01-02 16:10:21 UTC
Filed case #02551736 at the Red Hat customer portal. Rebase is out of scope for RHEL-7, however backporting support for SHA512 and SHA256 signatures should be easy enough. May I kindly ask if you talked with upstream if they're still including conditionals in their rulesets to cover older SpamAssassin versions properly? I mean upstream could assume that new rulesets (after 2020-03-01) are anyway working only on 3.4.2+ and thus they could (theoretically) skip conditionals (there might be new SpamAssassin features available in 3.4.2+, but not in 3.4.0). I can't speak for upstream but doing a "grep version" on /var/lib/spamassassin/*/updates_spamassassin_org/*.cf reveals a number of "require_version X" and "if (version >= X)" lines, so I think conditionals are still in play as of now. A message to the SA mailing list suggests that these conditionals will remain for the foreseeable future; the release notes for 3.4.2 say: "This means that while we produce rule updates with the focus on them working for any release from v3.3.2 forward, they will start failing SHA-1 validation for sa-update." That said, FTR, if your operation allows deviating from the standard RHEL/EPEL packages, the SRPM for 3.4.2 from Fedora installs cleanly (zero modifications) on CentOS 7 -- I imagine it would on RHEL 7 as well. (Note that 3.4.3 was released last month.) I haven't asked them, however I think the release notes mentioned by Amir answer it. It should be noted though that due to the conditionals, some of the rules will not be available. Created attachment 1652727 [details]
patch
*** Bug 1797283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** FYI, SpamAssassin 3.4.4 was released a few days ago. 3.4.4 fixes a couple of CVEs, as does 3.4.3. Since these are security-related, I imagine they should probably be backported into RHEL, although I hear the changes in 3.4.3 to address the CVEs were highly invasive, and the backport patch for Debian is of order 100KB... so a rebase may actually be easier. (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #6) > May I kindly ask if you talked with upstream if they're still including > conditionals in their rulesets to cover older SpamAssassin versions > properly? I mean upstream could assume that new rulesets (after 2020-03-01) > are anyway working only on 3.4.2+ and thus they could (theoretically) skip > conditionals (there might be new SpamAssassin features available in 3.4.2+, > but not in 3.4.0). I've received a confirmation that the rules are intended to remain compatible. https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7618#c24 unfortunately the zero invasive fix for DCC.pm was not included in that build, would have been a good chance, see also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532139 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473017 |