|
|
|
@ -26,10 +26,10 @@ for how to get started.
|
|
|
|
|
Suricata is a complex piece of software dealing with mostly untrusted
|
|
|
|
|
input. Mishandling this input will have serious consequences:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* in IPS mode a crash may knock a network offline;
|
|
|
|
|
* in IPS mode a crash may knock a network offline
|
|
|
|
|
* in passive mode a compromise of the IDS may lead to loss of critical
|
|
|
|
|
and confidential data;
|
|
|
|
|
* missed detection may lead to undetected compromise of the network.
|
|
|
|
|
and confidential data
|
|
|
|
|
* missed detection may lead to undetected compromise of the network
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, we think the stakes are pretty high, especially since
|
|
|
|
|
in many common cases the IDS/IPS will be directly reachable by an
|
|
|
|
@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ failure. If the GitHub-CI checks failed, the PR should be fixed right
|
|
|
|
|
away. No need for a discussion about it, unless you believe the QA
|
|
|
|
|
failure is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__Q: the compiler/code analyser/tool is wrong, what now?__
|
|
|
|
|
__Q: The compiler/code analyser/tool is wrong, what now?__
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A: To assist in the automation of the QA, we're not accepting warnings
|
|
|
|
|
or errors to stay. In some cases this could mean that we add a
|
|
|
|
@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ A: If you really think it is, we can discuss how to improve it. But
|
|
|
|
|
don't come to this conclusion too quickly, more often it's the code
|
|
|
|
|
that turns out to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__Q: do you require signing of a contributor license agreement?__
|
|
|
|
|
__Q: Do you require signing of a contributor license agreement?__
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A: Yes, we do this to keep the ownership of Suricata in one hand: the
|
|
|
|
|
Open Information Security Foundation. See
|
|
|
|
|