We eliminated 1,400 CVEs in NanoClaw's container images

12 comments

• halestock 2 hours ago

  Pretty impressive to introduce 1400 CVEs in a project that's only ~7 months old.

  [-]
  • GavCo an hour ago

    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.

    [-]
    • viccis 2 minutes ago

      Are these real findings, or a situation in which fixes have been backported? At one place I worked, the corpsec guys were wildly incompetent and would try to bury me in "CVEs" in my systems that were nothing but "vulnerable" software versions with all of the "identified" vulnerabilities fixed by Debian backported patches.

  • devin an hour ago

    If the thing measuring whether there are CVEs is also the thing creating said CVEs, are we sure they are even CVEs? Deduped? Etc.

  • random3 27 minutes ago

    It’s like it’s made of CVEs. First 50-100 should be a good sign if it’s cleaner to start over.

• evanjrowley 21 minutes ago

  Why is the Node ecosystem like this? Why do people continue to choose it for popular projects vs. anything else?

  [-]
  • itintheory 3 minutes ago

    It's the opposite of NIH syndrome. Need to left pad a string? Just import a library from some rando on the internet!

• aliasxneo an hour ago

  I'm convinced you can tackle 5-10 "CVEs" a day, make a little dashboard, put some pretty graphs on it, and send it to your exec team and probably get accolades. Nevermind that the CVEs had nothing to do with your product.

  [-]
  • nathancahill an hour ago

    This is how Vanta et al. make millions.

• iandanforth an hour ago

  I don't understand the 'custom patch' strategy over 'fix the app with a major version change' strategy.

• KaiserPro 2 hours ago

  so s/bookworm/trixie/g didn't work then?

  Yes, this is mostly a joke, I am able to understand the difference between base distros.

  [-]
  • iririririr 17 minutes ago

    a spot on "joke". deb12 is gone for a month now.