Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:59:07 +0100
From: Stuart Henderson <stu@...cehopper.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, hanno@...eck.de
Subject: Re: Re: CVE request: libressl before 2.0.2 under
 linux PRNG failure

On 2014/07/30 20:08, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
> >> I see a number of web pages relating to this issue are mentioning that
> >> it has already been assigned CVE-2014-2970, can anyone throw light on this?
> 
> > At MITRE, we (obviously) know where CVE-2014-2970 came from, and we'll
> > send information here about the resolution as soon as it happens.
> 
> We've since learned that nobody ever assigned CVE-2014-2970 to that
> LibreSSL issue, and apparently every appearance of CVE-2014-2970 in "a
> number of web pages" was ultimately the result of a miscommunication
> outside of MITRE.
> 
> A complication is that CVE-2014-2970 had been assigned to a different
> issue, and that issue isn't yet public. What you should do is:
> 
>   - if you're part of the embargo audience that has been using
>     CVE-2014-2970 for a private vulnerability, use CVE-2014-5139
>     instead
> 
>   - if you're not part of that embargo audience, all we can suggest is
>     that it's very likely that you'll see a public disclosure of
>     CVE-2014-5139 in the future

Interesting, thanks. So how does a reporter get hold of an embargoed CVE
number and mistakenly apply it to libressl? It seems strange to have
pulled this number out of thin air. And how long do these embargoes
last, this seems a relatively long time to be sitting on a bug which is
important enough to have been embargoed.

I await the announcement of CVE-2014-5139 with interest!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ