[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
cc: Wietse Venema <wietse@...cupine.org>, Tomas Hoger <thoger@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Some fun with tcp_wrappers
I'm not sure how to handle this from a CVE perspective, except:
- if the API functions perform as documented, as Wietse says, then
separate CVEs would need to be assigned for applications that misuse
the API.
- If there is a separate bug that causes tcp_wrappers to
allow hosts in ways that are contrary to specification, then that
would be treated as a problem in tcp_wrappers (whether it's from
Wietse or some downstream modification).
- If there's a problem due to incomplete documentation, that's a
somewhat unique case for CVE that would require more thought (although
not a first occurrence since Apple had a bad-documentation bug a year
or two ago)
Jan and Tomas - Red Hat bug 491095 mentions CVE-2009-0786 but I'm not
clear on how to write it up given the state of the discussion at this
point.
- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
