Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:42:39 +0100
From: Tomas Hoger <>
Cc:, Kurt Seifried <>,
        "Steven M.
 Christey" <>
Subject: Re: Re: TORCS 1.3.2 xml buffer overflow -

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:31:10 -0500 Andres Gomez wrote:

> 2012/3/5 Kurt Seifried <>
> > Would you consider tham to be the same code base or a different code
> > base? If the same code base, share the CVE, if different code
> > bases, new CVE for it. Steve: do we have a policy for "Fresh" forks
> > as it were?
> Well, Speed Dreams started with TORCS code base, but they have added
> a lot new code, so I would say that right now they have different
> code base, although they still share a big portion of the code (as
> the vulnerable section).  Because of that I would consider It needs a
> new CVE number, could you assign one to it?  :)

Their code bases may differ significantly in other parts, but it seems
the affected vulnerable code is still identical between the two.
Following are versions shortly before fixes got committed:

In cases like this, same CVE is used for all project that use / embed
the same affected code.

Tomas Hoger / 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.