Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:36:34 -0500 (EST) From: Petr Matousek <pmatouse@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Cc: coley@...us.mitre.org, dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com Subject: CVE request: kernel: CAN information leak, 2nd attempt "The CAN protocol uses the address of a kernel heap object as a proc filename, revealing information that could be useful during exploitation." Reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664544 http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2010/q4/103 Credit: Dan Rosenberg ------------ Please note that there has been one attempt to request CVE for this issue already . The problem is that vendors (Red Hat more or less included) used the assigned CVE for the potential heap overflow issue [2, 3] whereas reporter used it for information leak .  http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2010/q4/107  http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2010-12/msg00026.html  http://www.debian.org/security/2010/dsa-2126  http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/drosenbe/research.html I'd suggest to keep the CVE-2010-3874 id for the heap overflow which has some (although very limited) security potential and assign a new id for the information leak. Thanks, -- Petr Matousek / Red Hat Security Response Team
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.