Resolves #380: Added severity in the view at http://127.0.0.1:8000/vulnerabilities/<…

[Pushpit07]

Added severity in the view at http://127.0.0.1:8000/vulnerabilities/<vulnerability_id> by calling the scores() function for the particular reference and getting its value and scoring_system

Signed-off-by: Pushpit pushpit07@gmail.com

[Pushpit07]

Now all the severity values and scoring_systems related to the particular reference is being shown

G

[Hritik14]

I guess if we could have a generalized version of severity (for ex, the one like purl), it would be much better. What do you think @sbs2001 ?

[sbs2001]

@Hritik14 nope unifying them is the last thing we want to do. Severity changes according to the vendor. A score provided by redhat, would be given more importance when the found vulnerability is affecting a builtin redhat package but archlinux would rate it low if it is a external package.

See the bottom section at https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/

[Hritik14]

By generalisation, I didn’t actually mean generalised to one number/score. I meant that we can use a general format that could be applicable everywhere.
A very rudimentary example would be ‘ASA:7.6’ or ‘RHSA:3.5’.
EDIT: My bad. It is already present in severity_systems.py. I guess it didn't occur to me because the severity is present as a list of the scoring systems here.

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 I think continuing to use tables leaves us with lot of unused whitespace and the scores look too crammed up.

I think we should switch using a list instead, with nested severities ?

Something like
References:-

• Reference ID value | Reference URL
  • Severity scoring system {scoring_system} | {scoring_value}

A practical example:-

References:-
  *AVG-853| https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-853
    *CVSS_3 | 8.5
     *CVSS_3_vector| CVSS:3/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H   

[Pushpit07]

@sbs2001 I feel that tables represent data in a much more organised and readable format. Implementing the items as a list would actually make the experience cumbersome.
Instead, what I suggest is that we can provide a list of severities and scoring_system inside the table itself. Something like-

AVG-853	https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-853	* CVSS_3 *8.5	* cvssv3 * cvssv3_vector * cvssv2_vector
AVG-652	https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-652	* CVSS_2 *7.0	* cvssv2 * cvssv2_vector

What say?

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 that's a interesting approach. The example you provided doesn't help though, why am I seeing CVSS_3 in two columns ? How can I differentiate between what's the severity system and the value ? Please provide a clearer example :)

Implementing the items as a list would actually make the experience cumbersome.

Other than duplication of metadata, I don't see any other problem with this approach, maybe I'm missing something here ?

[Pushpit07]

@Pushpit07 that's a interesting approach. The example you provided doesn't help though, why am I seeing CVSS_3 in two columns ? How can I differentiate between what's the severity system and the value ? Please provide a clearer example :)

Table headers would be there to differentiate though

Reference ID	URL	Severity Value	Scoring system
-	https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-853
AVG-652	https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-652	* AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C * 7.0	* cvssv2 * cvssv2_vector

[Pushpit07]

Other than duplication of metadata, I don't see any other problem with this approach, maybe I'm missing something here ?

Yeah, duplication is the main reason due to which I'm suggesting to avoid it

[Pushpit07]

@sbs2001 Any updates on this? What to do?

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 sorry for the late reply. IMHO tables is the way to go, but we need some way to denote the informational hierarchy. In simple terms we want to denote that severity_system -> severity_value pairs are child of the reference.

The current approach brings them to the same level as that of the reference's main attributes which is kinda misleading.

Sorry for taking this long,I think this is not a good first issue, but you've been doing a good job. We need further design to fix the hierarchy thing and this will be done. I'm open to ideas here :)

[Pushpit07]

If I understand correctly, is this right?

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 the severity value should be the child/sibling of the each individual of each scoring system. See the example at #390 (comment).

[Pushpit07]

Oh, okay. This is what you mean?

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 yep that's what I mean't. I realized that we would want to nest them further.
Something like

References:-
  *AVG-853| https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-853
    *Severities
       System    |     Value
       *CVSS_3 | 8.5
       *CVSS_3_vector| CVSS:3/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H   

That'd be easy to be implement right ?

[Pushpit07]

Yup. Piece of cake

[AmitGupta7580]

Can we use this type of nested rows for severity represntation ?

[sbs2001]

@AmitGupta7580 that would work in case most of the references have a nested severity. But in reality that is not the case. Most of references don't provide a score. So we would end up with lots of wasted whitespace, and the references would get cramped unnecessarily

[AmitGupta7580]

What about this Tree structure View where user can expand particular reference and view its severity extracted from that reference.

[sbs2001]

@AmitGupta7580 why are there multiple references nodes ?

[AmitGupta7580]

@AmitGupta7580 why are there multiple references nodes ?

@sbs2001 No these 2 images are same, I just expanded the 2nd reference. It is the tree view of #390 (comment) this information.

[Pushpit07]

@sbs2001 Apologies for the delay. Been ill for the last 4 days and running behind schedule. Will give updates in a few hours

[AmitGupta7580]

@Pushpit07 Can you please brief me what are you trying to implement.

[Pushpit07]

@sbs2001 Updated design

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 I like your design.

Just don't use bootstrap, we already use bulma, using 2 css frameworks is a bad idea especially for a small feature.

[sbs2001]

We don't want to use bootstrap. We already use bulma. See https://bulma.io/documentation/elements/table/

[sbs2001]

I'm guessing this won't be needed if we use bulma ?

[Pushpit07]

This was necessary. I removed the is-bordered class from the table so that cells are not divided by a line. That was causing difficulty in understanding the structure of severity

[Pushpit07]

It looks good though. And isn't causing any confusion now

[Pushpit07]

[Pushpit07]

Removed table structure

[Pushpit07]

@sbs2001 ping

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 This looks weird when there's no reference id.

I think, we should make this simpler.

Let's keep the references as they are, not touch them.

Instead we'll create another section called scores.

This section would have a table(same like the references one) with 3 columns
system | value | reference

the reference would have value equal to the parent url of the score.

Because really, going lists is making things complicated wrt css and presentation. I especially don't want to maintain the custom css.

Again sorry for wasting your time, design is tough.

[Pushpit07]

This looks weird when there's no reference id.

Yes, it's hard to understand this way

Instead we'll create another section called scores.

This section would have a table(same like the references one) with 3 columns
system | value | reference

the reference would have value equal to the parent url of the score.

Can you explain this by an example?

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 see https://jsfiddle.net/0rv6we7p/5/

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 ping

[Pushpit07]

oh, probably missed your comment. Will change it to how it is in the jsfiddle. Give me a day's time

[Pushpit07]

@sbs2001

[sbs2001]

Thanks @Pushpit07 , see my suggestions inline, and this will be good to merge then.

[sbs2001]

@Pushpit07 This branch is stale, could you rebase this with latest main

[sbs2001]

Thanks merging, this