[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F132DE5.3030202@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:49:57 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Huzaifa Sidhpurwala <huzaifas@...hat.com>,
Agostino Sarubbo <ago@...too.org>
Subject: Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities
On 01/12/2012 10:55 PM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
>
> There are 6 file format crashes here. In the interest of vendors,
> which dont always rebase to the newer version, would it be convenient
> to split these into 6 CVEs?
>
> I doubt some older versions are affected by only some crashers.
>
>
I agree in principle, however in practice this is a lot of work (as you
well know =). I guess my question/concern would be is who does the
research to verify all this, and what if it varies by version (i.e. it
is 6 separate issues in an older version but the newer version combined
some code into a common library for example so it's only a single issue,
but with multiple avenues of attack/etc.). In other words a lot of
potential work.
--
-- Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team
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.
