Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:28:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...-smtp.mitre.org> To: Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com> cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...-smtp.mitre.org>, Eugene Teo <eugene@...hat.com> Subject: Re: CVE request: kernel: multiple issues in ROSE Given the complexity/number of patches, one could arguably call it "lack of length validation" entirely, but I think it's reasonable to give it a few CVE's. Note - we need different CVE's for the issues found by Dan Hutchings versus those found by Dan Rosenberg. Dan, could you confirm that this breakdown makes sense? 1) buffer overflows (not validating length is <= the maximum) 2) use of negative signed integers in memcpy() and other operations where conversion creates a large unsigned integer, referred to as "underflow" 3) any other types of problems that aren't covered by those two? (The length validation checks don't always have enough context in the source code). We would need separate CVE's for the issues found by Dan versus the issues found by Ben Hutchings. Arguably, #2 could probably be broken down further, but without enough source code context in the patches, it's not immediately clear. - 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.