Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <>
Subject: Re: CVE request: lxr


I agree that these are duplicates.  This arose out of an oddity in the CVE 
content production process, the specifics of which I'm still trying to 
figure out.  Basically we have multiple internal "production streams" 
where CVE-2010-1448 was processed through one stream, and CVE-2010-1738 
through another.  The original CVE confusion that happened in May 2010 no 
doubt complicated things.

Prefer CVE-2010-1448.  I have REJECTED CVE-2010-1738.

- Steve

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Dan Rosenberg wrote:

> Yes, CVE-2010-1738 is a dupe of CVE-2010-1448.
> -Dan
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Nico Golde <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> * Josh Bressers <> [2010-05-14 21:48]:
>>> ----- "Dan Rosenberg" <> wrote:
>>>> Josh,
>>>> The XSS in the title string was already assigned CVE-2010-1448.  Do
>>>> you mean to assign issue #2, the XSS reflected in search results?
>>> Sigh, yes.
>>> So to sum it up:
>>> 1.  XSS in the ident parameter, as described in CVE-2009-4497.
>>> 2.  XSS that is reflected via the search results page after issuing
>>> This one is now CVE-2010-1625
>>> 3. 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 assigned
>>> CVE-2010-1448
>> CVE-2010-1738 seems to be a dupe of this?
>> Cheers
>> Nico
>> --
>> Nico Golde - - - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA
>> For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.

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.