Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:13:08 +0000 From: "Christey, Steven M." <coley@...re.org> To: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>, "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com> CC: Assign a CVE Identifier <cve-assign@...re.org> Subject: RE: heap overflow in procmail Kurt, >So this is potentially a very bad issue, so I'm assigning a CVE, sorry >Mitre (safe assumption: they're all tucked away in bed like normal sane >people =). That's actually an unsafe assumption, which has introduced a vulnerability into your logic. There are counter-examples by two different CVE CNA team members in this thread alone. For additional evidence that counters your assumption, here are a handful of recent oss-security posts by cve-assign between midnight (Eastern time) and 4 AM. This list is far from complete. http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/09/02/1 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/13/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/13/4 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/13/5 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/14/2 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/14/5 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/15/3 When an issue has been made widely public to the security industry, CNAs are expected to attempt to coordinate more closely with MITRE before assigning a CVE ID themselves. This helps to reduce confusion and duplicates. Anything posted to oss-security is considered "widely public." - Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ