Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:10:42 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <>
To: "Christey, Steven M." <>,
        "" <>
CC: Assign a CVE Identifier <>
Subject: Re: heap overflow in procmail

On 03/09/14 11:13 PM, Christey, Steven M. wrote:
> 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.
> 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

Sorry, it was meant tongue in cheek, the main reason I assumed Mitre was
off because it came in relatively not super late in the day and no reply
from Mitre when I noticed it. I also wanted to avoid the notify you guys
then wait to confirm you weren't awake so I could get to bed early
(cause getting to bed early worked out for me today, sigh).

Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)

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