Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:10:22 +0100 From: Tomas Hoger <thoger@...hat.com> To: coley@...us.mitre.org Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CVE request -- git Hi Steven! On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:09:45 -0500 (EST) "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org> wrote: > CVE-2008-5916 was assigned to the diff.external issue. Thank you! > I updated the descriptions for CVE-2008-5516 and CVE-2008-5517 based > on Tomas' description. Looks like they got texts mixed up. -5516 was given to git_search issue, and -5517 to git_snapshot and git_object issues (the idea was to use lower id for the issue fixed earlier). Btw, commitdiff links are correct, only texts need swapping. Can you also change "in 1.5.x" to "before 1.5.x" in both descriptions? Wording in our BZ is probably confusing, but versions 1.5.5 and 1.5.6 are the first versions to include the fix, not the vulnerability. > Sebastian - it's not clear to me whether SUSE:SUSE-SR:2009:001 is > addressing CVE-2008-5516, CVE-2008-5517, or both. I've looked into their source rpm, and this is from my previous mail: "They fixed both -5516 (git_search) and -5517 (git_snapshot and git_object) issues using quote_command() (in their git-184.108.40.206-24.4.src.rpm)." http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/01/20/1 > Same question to the rPath maintainers... Their announcement mentions version 220.127.116.11, that should have both issues fixed (and -5916). They'll probably clarify what was their "old" version. HTH -- Tomas Hoger / Red Hat Security Response Team
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.