Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:49:29 +0100
From: Marcus Meissner <>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel address leaks

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:04:06AM -0500, Jon Oberheide wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 09:59 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: 
> > On lun., 2010-11-22 at 18:54 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > Oh, and if you get CVEs assigned, that kind of forces them to fix the
> > > problem, right?
> > > 
> > I'm not that sure (there are CVEs for issues considered too small by the
> > developers involved, not only in Linux, which are still opened), and I'm
> > not sure using CVE system for “blackmailing” is a good usage for that
> > tool.
> I think calling it "blackmail" is a bit hyperbolic. Rather, it's simply
> the next step in the vulnerability disclosure process: (1) research
> reports vulnerability to vendor; (2) vendor refuses to fix
> vulnerability; (3) research discloses vulnerability and requests CVE.
> Am I correct in assuming that it is acceptable procedure to assign CVEs
> to unpatched vulnerabilities?

CVE is just a directory index to vulnerabilites, regardless of fixed
status ... so YES.

Ciao, Marcus

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.