[clamav-users] Clamav EOL Policy and Signatures

[Micah Snyder (micasnyd)]

Hi Scott,

> First, I see the planned EOL data on clamav.net is the same as then.  Is the
assessment about extending the support period still ongoing?

We discussed it and agreed to a 1-year extension for 0.103 LTS (specifically) but not all LTS versions. We have a blog draft in review at this moment to formally announce this and explain the finer details. I just asked for a hold on publishing this for a few days, given the next topic.

> Second, we had some discussions about distros patching for security updates
after the support period if needed.  I noticed today that the scheduled
termination date for being able to download signatures is the same as the EOL
date.  That's a problem.

You're right, our EOL policy states that signature download support is the same as security patch support for LTS versions.

I already had concerns that LTS versions will be so popular that immediately cutting it off on the EOL date would be a problem. And at the time we wrote the EOL policy, we failed to consider distributions wanting to backport security patches to continue support for those versions on their own.

For LTS versions, I believe we should consider supporting signature download after we stop security patch support for an extra 6-months, or maaaybe 12-months.

It's also worth mentioning that new signatures may focus on features available in newer versions. For example, right now we're getting a lot of value out of image fuzzy hash signatures and those are not used by the 0.103 release. It is not quite the case right now, but in future years it is possible that much of the new signature content is not used by ClamAV versions past EOL. Our Cloudflare CDN is pretty expensive, so that is one argument I have heard for wanting to block downloads sooner than later.

Anyways, we have some folks on PTO right now, including my manager. I want to talk about it with them some more before we make any decisions. But I didn't want to leave you hanging either.

Regards,
Micah


Micah Snyder
ClamAV Development
Talos
Cisco Systems, Inc.

________________________________
From: clamav-users <clamav-users-bounces at lists.clamav.net> on behalf of Scott Kitterman via clamav-users <clamav-users at lists.clamav.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 2:32 PM
To: clamav-users at lists.clamav.net <clamav-users at lists.clamav.net>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <debian at kitterman.com>
Subject: [clamav-users] Clamav EOL Policy and Signatures

I don't know if this is new or if I missed it before, but, now that I've
looked at https://docs.clamav.net/faq/faq-eol.html again, I have questions/
comments about the provision of signature support to EOL releases.

A little over a month ago (Feb 18) one of the Fedora clamav maintainers raised
concerns about the planned EOL date for 0.103.

First, I see the planned EOL data on clamav.net is the same as then.  Is the
assessment about extending the support period still ongoing?

Second, we had some discussions about distros patching for security updates
after the support period if needed.  I noticed today that the scheduled
termination date for being able to download signatures is the same as the EOL
date.  That's a problem.

If 0.103 is going to be unable to download signatures as soon as Sep-14 2023,
then that means it's useless after that date.  My recollection is that
historically signatures were only blocked for older versions when it was
technically unavoidable.  As long as users can download signatures, then
distros can support users on older releases for as long as they can manage to
backport security fixes.  If that's no longer the case, I don't know that it's
going to be feasible to ship it in a release.

Am I misunderstanding the table?

Scott K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clamav.net/pipermail/clamav-users/attachments/20230324/b12b8723/attachment.htm>