Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:24:05 -0400
From: Dan Rosenberg <>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <>
Subject: Re: CVE request: lxr

Sorry for not making this explicitly clear.  There are three issues:

1.  XSS in the ident parameter, as described in CVE-2009-4497.

2.  XSS that is reflected via the search results page after issuing a search.

3.  XSS that is reflected via the <title> tag on the search page, as
described in Raphael's original e-mail a few days ago, which Josh just
assigned CVE-2010-1448.

Bugs 1 and 2 were fixed simultaneously, as indicated in the 2010-01-05
changelog entry for LXR:

2010-01-05 18:00  mbox

	* ident, search: Fix for CVE-2009-4497 from Dan Rosenberg

	  Avoid a XSS vulnerability

Bug 3 was fixed a few days later on 2010-01-15, as indicated by:

2010-01-15 23:23  mbox

	* lib/LXR/ Fix XSS exploit in title string

So, while my original intent at the time of disclosure was to have a
single CVE identifier assigned to cover all three of these issues,
that obviously did not happen.  As it stands, bugs 1 and 3 have their
own CVE identifiers, and bug 2 remains unassigned.


On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Steven M. Christey
<> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010, Henri Salo wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 May 2010 09:31:16 -0400
>> Dan Rosenberg <> wrote:
>> Several XSS-vulnerabilities can have one CVE at least when those
>> vulnerabilities are fixed at the same time.
> Another factor is when they are published at the same time.
>> Can someone verify what is the policy by the book?
> It's never as easy as just a couple rules, unfortunately.  In this case,
> CVE-2009-4497 has been around for a long time, so it's strongly attached to
> *only* the "i" parameter/ident issue.  It's too risky to change the
> fundamental meaning of a CVE after it's been published.  (So even though the
> intention of Dan's original request may have been to cover other issues,
> that's not what it looks like to the public any more.)
> Josh assigned CVE-2010-1448 for the search page issue, and now Dan has
> alluded to a third issue that is neither ident nor search page, but we don't
> know what that third issue is.
> If Dan's issue is what he calls "a third XSS bug" in
> then I'd want a
> different CVE for it - since it's addressed in a separate "version" than the
> other two XSS bugs.
> The crux of the problem here is that the original bug report alluded to
> "several" XSS but only listed the ident issue; our CVE description typically
> might say "multiple XSS, for example this particular vector," but we didn't
> do that... and neither does the vendor specifically indicate that the other
> vaguely-specified issues were actually addressed.
> - 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.