Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:35:27 -0400 From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: On anonymous CVE assignments On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@...il.com> wrote: > *CVE*-*2016*-*3751*(H) > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> > wrote: > >> Also if projects don't like "Surprise" CVEs one way to deal with that is >> to >> request the CVE's themselves when they know something is a security >> vulnerability. Also making it easy to contact them helps, the harder you >> make it for a security researcher to deal with you, the less likely they >> are to. >> > > It's hard to do that when a "surprise" CVE was never sent to the project, > for example *CVE*-*2016*-*3751*(H) which just appeared in an Android > security > bulletin. It claims that libpng has a bug that allows privilidge > escalation > and was reported 3 Dec 2015. I'm guessing that it is a duplicate of > CVE-2015-8126 or CVE-2015-8472, but it's hard to tell for sure without > seeing it. All I've been able to find out is that it is a "reserved" CVE, > with > no clue as to who reserved it. > I still haven't seen the CVE, but it seems that it is a report against a fork of libpng, that had fallen several years out-of-date, and the CVE is just a private catch-all for updating the fork to current libpng status. > Glenn Randers-Pehrson > libpng custodian > >
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