| ▲ | halestock an hour ago |
| Pretty impressive to introduce 1400 CVEs in a project that's only ~7 months old. |
|
| ▲ | GavCo an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| These are CVEs in the base image and in standard lib dependencies. For example, just scanned an unhardened image I built today: Unhardened: docker.io/nanoco/nanoclaw:agent-alpha
71 packages, 344 unique CVEs, linux/arm64
PACKAGE VERSION TYP C H M L N TOT
-----------------------------------------------------------
expat 2.5.0 deb 0 4 18 1 2 25
curl 7.88.1 deb 4 4 6 0 7 21
hono 4.12.14 npm 0 1 18 2 0 21
libtiff 4.5.0 deb 0 2 1 1 15 20
perl 5.36.0 deb 5 6 3 0 3 17
pnpm 10.33.0 npm 0 8 7 0 0 15
glibc 2.36 deb 1 2 2 1 7 13
openjpeg 2.5.0 deb 0 0 3 1 9 13
cups 2.4.2 deb 0 2 8 0 1 11
glib2 2.74.6 deb 1 7 1 0 1 10
tar 1.34(+2) deb 1 1 7 0 1 10
llvm 15.0.6 deb 0 0 0 1 9 10
sqlite3 3.40.1 deb 1 2 3 0 3 9
nss 3.87.1 deb 1 0 3 0 4 8
avahi 0.8 deb 0 0 8 0 0 8
util-linux 2.38.1 deb 0 0 3 0 2 7
elf 0.188 deb 0 0 0 0 7 7
libssh2 1.10.0 deb 1 4 1 0 0 6
openldap 2.5.13 deb 0 1 0 0 5 6
chromium 151.0.7922.108 deb 0 5 0 0 0 5
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUE CVEs 16 68 121 17 119 344
(+51 more packages, 102 findings)
C/H/M/L/N = critical/high/medium/low/negligible.
Counts are unique CVEs: binaries from one source package are
grouped (libcurl4 + libcurl3-gnutls + curl = curl), so a CVE
hitting three of them counts once, not three times.
|
|
| ▲ | devin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the thing measuring whether there are CVEs is also the thing creating said CVEs, are we sure they are even CVEs? Deduped? Etc. |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | random3 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It’s like it’s made of CVEs. First 50-100 should be a good sign if it’s cleaner to start over. |
