[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:00:42 -0400
From: Mark Stanislav <mark.stanislav@...il.com>
To: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
Cc: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: CVE Requests
On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 07:30 PM, Mark Stanislav wrote:
>> #1,2,3 are all included
>
> ? Sorry but I have literally no idea what that means.
You gave be a numbered list of requirements, I was confirming the existence of those first three for each vulnerability were found with my original email to the list.
>
>> #4, each project is linked to where the code (both vulnerable and/or
>> fixed) lives
>>
>> #5...
>> phpMoneyBooks, 1.0.2 and potentially prior versions
>> phpGradeBook, 1.9.4 and potentially prior versions
>> phpPaleo, 4.8b155 and potentially prior versions
>> hbportal, 0.1 and potentially prior versions
>> eticketing, no version numbering used *shrug*
>>
>> #6 An e-mail was sent to cve@...re.org <mailto:cve@...re.org> 7 days ago
>> without response
>> #7 All open source
>> #8 Not embargoed
>
> I need the actual information for each one. Check out the nginx CVE
> request today for a good example.
What "actual information"? Anything that was asked for was given between my initial and secondary email.
I've been allocated 9 CVEs over the past two years and never done any of this extra detail prior to releasing an advisory. That's not a commentary on you as a CNA but this process is quite involved relative to my previous experiences. Not sure what the confusion stems from...
-Mark
>
>> I think that should do it.
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com
>> <mailto:kseifried@...hat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/15/2012 01:18 PM, Mark Stanislav wrote:
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> I was looking to receive CVEs for the following...
>>>
>>> 1) phpMoneyBooks (http://phpmoneybooks.com/) has an
>> unauthenticated local
>>> file inclusion (LFI) vulnerability
>>> * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
>>>
>>> 2) phpGradeBook (http://phpgradebook.com/) has unauthenticated SQL
>> Database
>>> Exportation
>>> * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
>>>
>>> 3) phpPaleo (http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppaleo/) has an
>>> unauthenticated local file inclusion (LFI) vulnerability
>>> * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
>>>
>>> 4) hbportal (http://sourceforge.net/projects/hbportal/) has a
>> POST-based
>>> SQL injection vulnerability
>>> * Notified
>>>
>>> 5) e-ticketing (http://sourceforge.net/projects/e-ticketing/) has a
>>> POST-based SQL injection vulnerability
>>> * Notified & Response Received
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>> Removed the "no" this time to avoid ambiguity=)
>>
>> More info would be helpful. Some draft guidelines:
>>
>> Information for CVE request, REQUIRED:
>>
>> 1) Email address of requester (so we can contact them)
>> 2) Software name and optionally vendor name
>> 3) At least one of (to determine is this a security issue):
>> 1. Type of vulnerability
>> 2. Exploitation vectors
>> 3. Attack outcome
>> 4) For Open Source at least one of:
>> 1. Link to vulnerable source code or fix
>> 2. Link to source code change log
>> 3. Link to security advisory
>> 4. Link to bug entry
>> 5. Request comes from project member (a.k.a. "trust me, it's a
>> problem")
>> 5) Affected version(s) (3.2.4, 3.x, current version, all current
>> releases, something)
>> 6) Whether or not this has been previously requested (i.e. on OSS-Sec or
>> to cve-assign)
>> 7) Is this an Open Source or commercial software request
>> 8) Is this an embargoed issue (if yes and commercial: send to
>> cve-assign, if yes and open source: send to vs-sec?)
>> 9) IF multiple issues are listed please list affected versions for each
>> issue and/or who reported them (so we can determine CVE split/merge).
>>
>> Information for CVE request, REQUESTED:
>>
>> 1) More of the above information of course
>> 2) Software version(s) fixed (if available)
>> 3) For closed source any of the information from "For Open Source at
>> least one of:"
>> 4) Any additional information
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -- Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
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.
