[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:41:12 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: vsftpd download backdoored
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:30:57PM +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
> On 07/05/2011 01:25 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:56:57PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> >> IIRC for such backdoored downloads CVE IDs were assigned in the past
> >> to properly track the status of distributions providing the affected
> >> piece of code.
> >
> > I suspect that no distributions provide the affected code this time.
> > So if affected distributions is the only reason for CVE ID assignment in
> > this case, it might make sense to postpone CVE ID allocation until we
> > learn of an affected distribution (which we probably won't).
>
> But with a CVE name, it is easier for people to refer to this issue, and
> also easier for distributions to publish an official statement.
Your reasoning makes sense to me.
I have no objections to having a CVE ID assigned to this issue, but I
have no idea what the policy is on such assignments.
Alexander
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.
