[MIR] libmysofa

TODO: Review for Package: libmysofa

[Summary]
MIR team ACK
Due to the history of unresolved CVE, this does need a security review, so I'll assign ubuntu-security
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: libmysofa1

[Duplication]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
- SRCPKG checked with `check-mir`
- all dependencies can be found in `seeded-in-ubuntu` (already in main)
- none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends
  and Recommends) that are present after build are not in main
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
  more tests now.

[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
- no embedded source present
- no static linking
- does not have unexpected Built-Using entries

OK:
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- not a rust package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard

[Security]
OK:
- does not run a daemon as root
- does not use webkit1,2
- does not use lib*v8 directly
- does not open a port/socket
- does not process arbitrary web content
- does not use centralized online accounts
- does not integrate arbitrary javascript into the desktop
- does not deal with system authentication (eg, pam), etc)
- does not deal with security attestation (secure boot, tpm, signatures)
- does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates, signing, ...)

Problems:
- history of CVEs does look concerning, especially the non triaged ones.
- does not parse data formats (files audio) from an untrusted source.
For both those reasons,

[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- does have a test suite that runs at build time
- test suite fails will fail the build upon error.
- does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under control
- symbols tracking is in place
- debian/watch is present and looks ok
- Upstream update history is good
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is good
- the current release is packaged
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
- no massive Lintian warnings
- debian/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list

[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no Errors/warnings during the build
- no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (as far as we can check it)
- no use of sudo, gksu, pkexec, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (usage is OK inside tests)
- no use of user nobody
- no use of setuid
- no important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
- no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit, seed or libgoa-*
- not part of the UI for extra checks
- no translation present, but none needed for this case

@seb128, is libmysofa-utils required in main?

@Mark, I don't think it is required no

Because libmysofa is now stuck in the security backlog, and I am the reviewer, I wanted to let you know about recent events.

Meanwhile, I've sent two emails to the upstream: one soon after starting the review, containing a piece of exposed sensitive information, and another after finishing the study, containing recommendations to improve the security posture of the package. I have not received a response to any of these emails. Furthermore, there has been no activity in the repository since July.

Because I am not prepared to complete this review, I suggest deferring the decision until the following cycle. This will also give upstream more time to respond to our observation and, eventually, work on the recommended security best practices.

@George-Andrei, thanks for the status update. It's too late in the mantic cycle to enable that feature now anyway so next cycle is fine for us