Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:04:06 -0500 From: Jon Oberheide <jon@...rheide.org> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Linux kernel address leaks 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? Regards, Jon Oberheide -- Jon Oberheide <jon@...rheide.org> GnuPG Key: 1024D/F47C17FE Fingerprint: B716 DA66 8173 6EDD 28F6 F184 5842 1C89 F47C 17FE Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
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.