Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 20:04:41 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <>
Subject: Re: How to request a CVE for open source projects

On 2017-05-22 7:13 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 06:53:42PM -0600, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>> On 2017-05-22 5:44 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> Neither, that's part of what I'm figuring out. Most likely it'll look
>> like a trusted pool of people (aka CVE Mentors) that can either
>> contribute or more easily gatekeep). Also the doc are out of date and
>> the process is evolving rapidly so I haven't really bothered updating
>> them since things keep changing.
> It might be worth noting that in the README file on the documentation
> repo.  It wouldn't take long and may prevent confusion in the meantime.
>> Good question. What exactly is it you want to input? CVE requests? CVE
>> assignments? Modify existing CVE entries?
> Primarily, freeform discussion of the sort that occurred on this list as
> a natural outcropping of the CVE request process led to people linking
> to verification code, temporary mitigations, highlighting of incomplete
> fixes, and the sort of information that was requested earlier in this
> thread.  This ability to easily chip in to ongoing situations wasn't
> just useful for mitre staff doing CVE work, it was also useful for the
> "community of practice" looking for the latest information regarding
> self-defense.  I've prevented more than one attack thanks to a one-off
> reply from someone in response to a CVE request.  

You can still do this. oss-security is a list run by Solar Designer
( I happen to be a long time poster/moderator, but I have
no official control/etc (I don't even block posts, that's up to solar, I
just allow stuff or ignore it when it's up for moderation).

The DWF will not be taking CVE requests on oss-security (ditto for
MITRE/etc.), why? They're way to messy. We need well structured requests
i we want this to scale (I should know, I've done over 5000 CVE
assignments). One goal is to get CVE assignments down to minutes with
minimal latency (e.g. a large pool of assigners so timezones aren't a
problem). This stuff can then be posted to oss-security WITH a CVE.

Or you can post it to oss-security WITHOUT a CVE (like you did in past)
and still have all the discussion. The only change is if you want a CVE
you hav to fill out a simple form and wait a bit. You had to wait when
you posted here so the waiting part hasn't changed much. (well ok, right
now the DWF is slow, but again I'm working on that).

> The CVE assignment process was more than just a collaborative
> database-population effort.  With the shift to webforms and javascript
> the natural environment which promoted that discourse is being removed.
I disagree. If not assigning CVE's on the list kills this list, then...
wow. Good to know I personally kept this list up and running for a few
>> Not really. the docs are out of date and I'm more concerned about
>> evolving this right now then updating documentation.
> Again, I strongly suggest you note on the README that this is the case.
> As matters stand the documentation represents itself as accurate.
Which README specifically (there's a bunch), feel free to reply offlist.

> khm

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

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