[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:51:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: Jonathan Smith <smithj@...ethemallocs.com>
cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com,
"Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>, tss@....fi
Subject: Re: CVE? CCE? dovecot setting is often used incorrectly
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> I've been trying to figure out what to do with this one. I'm not
> inclined to believe it deserves a CVE given that it is configuration
> (either dovecot config or filesystem permissions configuration). I read
> once on mitre.org about "Common Configuration Enumeration" aka "CCE"
> issues, but I've never seen them actually used. Maybe this is a good
> candidate?
>
> Steve, any ideas?
Sorry for the delayed response - had some computer problems just as I was
about to press "send" and forgot about this.
CCE is gaining a lot of ground these days as part of the US government's
SCAP program for enterprise-level security information management
(summarizing SCAP approximately at best).
We've identified some areas of potential overlap where both CCE and CVE
could apply. At this stage though, CCE is mostly about
configuration/hardening at the OS layer, including major OS applications -
that said, conceptually it could apply to any application.
Especially in cases where a "non-OS-level" application has a default
configuration, or where a bug introduces a configuration issue, CVE
continues to assign identifiers. We'll also assign an identifier for a
common misconfiguration, even if it's not the default.
So - use CVE-2008-1199 for this issue.
- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
