`safety` requires `crypography>=39.0.0` which hasn't been released yet
See original GitHub issue- safety version:
1.10.3
- Python version:
3.10.2
- Operating System:
MacOS 11.7
Description
Hello š
safety
currently requires cryptography>=39.0.0
for its checks to pass (see screenshot), citing the below reason, with ID 51159
:
Cryptography 39.0.0 drops support for C library āLibreSSLā < 3.4, as these versions are not receiving security support anymore.
However, it looks like version 39.0.0
of cryptography
is under development and hasnāt been released yet.
As far as I can see, the only way around this for now is to ask safety
to ignore its check on cryptography
.
Thereās a comment on commit https://github.com/pyupio/safety-db/commit/e582a03665fde14b58dd247b5d33aa4c0f0832e5 about it here.
Thanks š
What I Did
Ran the following:
safety check --full-report --file=requirements.txt
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Reactions:4
- Comments:6 (2 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
No results found
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Hi, Iām one of the pyca/cryptography primary maintainers.
This isnāt a security issue in pyca/cryptography in the first instance. Itās removing support for interoperating with older LibresSSL versions. To a certain extent using old unsupported libressl is a security issue, but thatās fixed by upgrading libressl, not by upgrading cryptography.
Iād strongly encourage the safety maintainers to consult with the pyca/cryptography maintainers when creating vulnerability reports for us. We always request CVEs when fixing vulnerabilities.
Hi everyone. For now, we have decided to remove the vulnerability and update our databases to reflect this. Even though this vulnerability is valid for a subset of users, given that the maintainers report that the vast majority of users are unaffected we can remove it for now. Thanks for bringing this up, and for everyoneās patience. Our security team will look at this again soon; if we consider it worth publishing, we will first contact maintainers to discuss it before sending it to the public. (Iām closing this thread too)