I hate this. Delaying real bugfixes to achieve some nebulous poorly defined security benefit is just bad engineering.
If there's a bugfix or security patch that applies to how your application uses the dependency, then you review the changes, manually update your version if you feel comfortable with those changes, and accept responsibility for the intervention if it turns out you made a mistake and rushed in some malicious code.
Meanwhile, most of the time, most changes pushed to dependencies are not even in the execution path of any given application that integration with them, and so don't need to be rushed in. And most others are "fixes" for issues that were apparently not presenting an eminent test failure or support crisis for your users and don't warrant being rushed in.
There's not really a downside here, for any software that's actually being actively maintained by a responsible engineer.
> Meanwhile, most of the time, most changes pushed to dependencies are not even in the execution path of any given application that integration with them
Sorry, this is really ignorant. You don't appreciate how much churn their is in things like the kernel and glibc, even in stable branches.
You're correct, because it's completely neurotic to worry about phantom bugs that have no actual presence of mind but must absolutely positively be resolved as soon as a candidate fix has been pushed.
If there's a zero day vulnerability that affects your system, which is a rare but real thing, you can be notified and bypass a cooldown system.
Otherwise, you've presumably either adapted your workflow to work around a bug or you never even recognized one was there. Either way, waiting an extra <cooldown> before applying a fix isn't going to harm you, but it will dampen the much more dramatic risk of instability and supply chain vulnerabilities associated with being on the bleeding edge.
Well, I've made a whole career out of fixing bugs like that. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
It is shockingly common to see systems bugs that don't trigger for a long time by luck, and then suddenly trigger out of the blue everywhere at once. Typically it's caused by innocuous changes in unrelated code, which is what makes it so nefarious.
The most recent example I can think of was an uninitialized variable in some kernel code: hundreds of devices ran that code reliably for a year, but an innocuous change in the userland application made the device crash on startup almost 100% of the time.
The fix had been in stable for months, they just hadn't bothered to upgrade. If they had upgraded, they'd have never known the bug existed :)
I can tell dozens of stories like that, which is why I feel so strongly about this.
The point is that a change to a completely unrelated component caused a latent bug to make the device unusable, ended up delaying a release for weeks and causing them have to pay me a bunch of money to fix it for them.
If they'd been applying upgrades, they would have never even known it existed, and all that trouble would have been avoided.
I mean, I'm sort of working against my own interest here: arguably I should want people to delay upgrades so I can get paid to backport things for them :)
Realistically, no one does full side-by-side tests with and without lockfiles, but it's a good idea to at least do a smoke test or two that way.
Of course we talk about OS security upgrades here, not library dependencies. But the attack vector is similar.
If upgrading like that scares you, your automated testing isn't good enough.
On average, the most bug free Linux experience is to run the latest version of everything. I wasted much more time backporting bugfixes before I started doing that, than I have spent on new bugs since.
Maybe your codebase is truly filled with code that is that riddled with flaws, but:
1) If so, updating will not save you from zero days, only from whatever bugs the developers have found.
2) Most updates are not zero day patches. They are as likely to (unintentionally) introduce zero days as they are to patch them.
3) In the case where a real issue is found, I can't imagine it isn't hard to use the aforementioned security vendors, and use their recommendations to force updates outside of a cooldown period.
Although, even for Operating Systems, cooldown periods on patches are not only a good thing, but something that e.g. a large org that can't afford downtime will employ (managing windows or linux software patches, e.g.). The reasoning is the same - updates have just as much chance to introduce bugs as fix them, and although you hope your OS vendor does adequate testing, especially in the case where you cannot audit their code, you have to wait so that either some 3rd party security vendor can assess system safety, or you are able to perform adequate testing yourself.
Some of these can be short-lived, existing only on a minor patch and fixed on the next one promptly but you’ll get it if you upgrade constantly on the latest blindly.
There is always risks either way but latest version doesn’t mean the “best” version, mistakes, errors happens, performance degradation, etc.
I think you're using a different definition of zero day than what is standard. Any zero day vulnerability is not going to have a patch you can get with an update.
Yes. I'm saying that's wrong.
The default should always be to upgrade to new upstream releases immediately. Only in exceptional cases should things be held back.
> this is clearly a straw man, as no one is saying you'd wait seven days to deploy THAT patch...
The policy being proposed is that upgrades are delayed. So in a company where that policy was enforced, I would be required to request an exception to the policy for your hypothetical patch.
That's unacceptable for me. That's requiring me to do extra work for a nebulous poorly quantified security "benefit". It's a waste of my time and energy.
I'm saying the whole policy is unjustified and should never be applied by default. At all. It's stupid. Its harmful for zero demonstrable benefit.
I'm being blunt because you seem determined to somehow misconstrue what I'm saying as a nitpicky argument. I'm saying the whole policy is terrible and stupid. If it were forced on me by an employer, I would quit. Seriously.
You will not know how long it takes to get a zero day fixed, because zero in "zero day" ends when the vendor is informed:
> "A zero day vulnerability refers to an exploitable bug in software that is unknown to the vendor."