[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:08:56 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: cve-assign@...re.org
CC: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, misc@...b.org
Subject: Re: Ansible CVE requests
On 07/02/2014 04:49 PM, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
>> It turns out that the fix was incomplete.
>
>> I think this warrants a separate CVE ID.
>
> Use CVE-2014-4678 for the
> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/commit/5429b85b9f6c2e640074176f36ff05fd5e4d1916
> fix that was announced in the 2014-06-25 ansible-announce "Ansible
> 1.6.4 update - security release" message at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=ansible-announce/ieV1vZvcTXU/5Q93ThkY9rIJ
Thanks.
> Additional CVE IDs (at least two) will be assigned for:
>
> A. The 2014-06-25 ansible-announce "Ansible 1.6.5 - updated security
> fix" message at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=ansible-announce/A1px5egCnGQ/jH6f5HM7kpkJ
I think the change in 1.6.5 was an attempt to fix a functionality
regression, not something that actually added restrictions to the
sandbox. I am aware that this assessment is at odds with what upstream
has stated, so you might want to assign a CVE nevertheless.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
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.
