It's kinda ironic, the biggest innovation in package management and OS design is basically unusable for the average tech person.
Compared to Nix, every other package manager is a security liability.
Compared to Nix, every other package manager is a security liability.
Nix is great, but I don't see much difference with respect to security. In fact, Nix encourages and flakes formalize pinning of nixpkgs versions. I am sure that there are a bazillion repositories/configurations out there that use a pinned nixpkgs version with known vulnerabilities in glibc, libxml, or whatever.
Besides that, packages in nixpkgs often have known vulnerabilities for months, because of a lack of volunteers to maintain all of nixpkgs.
I love Nix and the large amount of work that goes into nixpkgs. But let's avoid every Nix discussion becoming a 'Nix evangelism strike force' has landed kind of thing. Be honest about Nix' strengths and weaknesses.
Garbage in, garbage out.
It would be nice if Nix could make vulns go away entirely, but you can't keep people from creating buggy packages.
Nixpkg does quite a good job in tracking those issues, imho. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss... is a list of security issues. Most of them generated by automated scans of nixpkgs-unstable.
But as far as I am aware, there's no mailing list or so for receiving notifications upon critical vulnerabilities(?). https://nixos.org/community/teams/security.html mentions github issues, discourse and matrix. Triaging security issues requires significant work and it's a task even more traditional distros like Debian often struggle with.
One thing I'd like to see eventually is an option to nixos-rebuild and other to emit warnings if installed packages are affected by known vulnerabilities. I think that should be doable and would maybe raise awareness and provide most visibility to the issues affecting most users.
https://github.com/flyingcircusio/vulnix does something like this, but it's currently a third-party tool
They need some serious shakeup from that side in my opinion. I've had PRs open for trivial things for >1mth. Issues, security stuff, new packages. They don't even document how to mark something as a security issue. PRs that mention CVE do that, but otherwise I couldn't find anything so for example https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/161198 which includes a security fix is still waiting.
If they can't pull off the reviews with 577 people (https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/people), then they need to start rejecting new ones or relaxing the automerge rules - at the very least on simple version bumps. Flakes at least provide some solution for easily including the 3rd party software without merging.
Only committers can add those labels - it's probably best to flag it in the PR subject line and hope a committer notices it and turns it into a label.
Edit: more...
When it comes to "trivial" changes I think there's an ironic "zone of triviality" where, if other reviewers are anything like me, reviews of more serious bumps will get prioritized. A minor bump is so likely to get superseded very soon that I'll prioritize something that is more likely to cause breakages and require attention. Some package areas (e.g. python packages) do periodic mass bumps of packages to catch the stragglers.
There are of course issues though drawing attention to "trivial" changes that are subtly important like, as you say, security issues.
I would be cautious not to assume the alternatives are perfect https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/status/release/s.... It's not uncommon for nixpkgs to get a security fix out before debian.
I think the real issue is that nixpkgs has a lot more "long tail" packages than most package managers, where security issues are grey areas. e.g. upstream aren't great at handling them, making new releases with the fix or god forbid acknowledging the need to be able to backport a fix to a stable branch.
Though I don't disagree that timely reviews would help an awful lot in nixpkgs.