Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:57:50 -0700
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...hat.com>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2009-3297 samba/ncpfs/fuse issues granted
 individual 2010 CVE names?

* [2010-03-02 13:52:05 -0700] Vincent Danen wrote:

>Hi, Steve.  I'm confused about these three CVEs, particularly since
>CVE-2009-3297 was assigned to this issue (I suppose it would be more
>correct to have 3 CVEs for the issue, but I'm not sure then why
>CVE-2009-3297 was completely ignored unless you intend for it to be not
>used/duplicated to one of these?).
>
>I'm also confused on using a 2010-based name since our bugzilla entry is
>dated 2009-11-04, and Samba upstream has their reported dated
>2009-10-28, so these should have received 2009-based names.
>
>We've used CVE-2009-3297 all over the place so it's pretty hard to miss.
>Looking at the references just for the samba issue (your CVE-2010-0787),
>all of the references except the git commits refer to CVE-2009-3297.
>
>Can you clarify why this was done?  CC'ing oss-security in case anyone
>else has noticed this as well.

Gah!  Sorry, I missed this other bit because I was looking on the
website and CVE-2009-3297 still says "** RESERVED **", but:

> Name: CVE-2009-3297
> URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-3297
> 
> ** REJECT **
> 
> DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER.  ConsultIDs: CVE-2010-0787,
> CVE-2010-0788, CVE-2010-0789.  Reason: this candidate was intended for
> one issue in Samba, but it was used for multiple distinct issues,
> including one in FUSE and one in ncpfs.  Notes: All CVE users should
> consult CVE-2010-0787 (Samba), CVE-2010-0788 (ncpfs), and
> CVE-2010-0789 (FUSE) to determine which ID is appropriate.  All
> references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to
> prevent accidental usage.

Sorry for the extra noise, but I am still curious as to why the decision
was made to reject CVE-2009-3297 instead of just indicating it should
have been only used for samba and had the other 2 assigned individually?

-- 
Vincent Danen / Red Hat Security Response Team 

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.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.