advisory-db VS chrono

You might also want to add this to https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db so that cargo audit and Dependabot surface it.

The behavior of not extracting outside the specified directory has been the default since forever in Rust's tar. And then it had two RUSTSEC advisories for not handling this correctly in certain corner cases. The latest one in 2021.

cargo-audit only checks for known issues reported to a vulnerability database.

However, I keep getting this error when running cargo audit bin ~/.cargo/bin/*, even if I replace * with a specific binary: Fetching advisory database from `https://github.com/RustSec/advisory-db.git` Loaded 467 security advisories (from C:\Users\jonah\.cargo\advisory-db) Updating crates.io index error: I/O operation failed: The system cannot find the path specified. (os error 3) I'm on Windows 10.

I usually open an issue asking if the crate is still maintained. If there isn't a response for a decent amount of time (like multiple months) and the crate is somewhat popular then it could be worth opening an unmaintained advisory in the advisory-db

Here is the visualization of RustSec Advisory Database. I hope it will be helpful. If you need any more charts, feel free to comment.

FWIW the RustSec database is still not synced into the Github databse on a regular basis, even though they did an initial import of it. So the cargo audit github action is still relevant.

The problem is that this effects higher languages too, because they often build on libc. And on some OSes, they don't have a choice, because the system call interface is unstable and/or undocumented).

For example in rust, multiple time libraries were found to be unsound if `std::env::set_env` was ever called from a multi-threaded program. See:

https://github.com/time-rs/time/issues/293 and https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/issues/499

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27970

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90308

> I think library authors should be more relentless and break compatibility every few years. We just need some conventions to not do so very often.

I indeed did this years ago---I'm the original author of Chrono [1]---and it wasn't well received [2] [3] [4]. To be fair, I knew it was a clear violation of semantic versioning but I didn't see any point of obeying that until we've reached 1.0 so I went ahead. People complained a lot and I had to yank the problematic release. By then I realized many enough people religiously expect semantic versioning (for good reasons though) and it's wiser to avoid useless conflict.

[1] https://github.com/chronotope/chrono

[2] https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/issues/146#issuecomment...

[3] https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/issues/156

[4] https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#...

On that note, it would also be good to configure cargo-deny so that a CI pipeline and any maintainer can easily audit the current dependency versions. Sometimes CVEs require a new major semver (looking at you, time 0.1.x and thus chrono 0.4.x), so it's not enough to rely on people installing the tool with semver-compatible updates. Automatically auditing dependencies is really important, and given how easy cargo-deny makes it, I don't think many projects have any excuse not to configure it.

The example has been randomly taken from the [Chrono][https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/blob/main/src/offset/utc.rs] crate.

libc isn't "just a wrapper". Is a massive legacy codebase filled with hacks, UBs and bugs: https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/issues/499

Would love to have people test this, you can leave feedback here: https://github.com/chronotope/chrono/issues/674.

Security issues? I'm looking at the open issues, but haven't noticed any that seem to be security related (no security related labels either). What am I missing here?