Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:30:58 -0400
From: Mark Stanislav <mark.stanislav@...il.com>
To: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Requests

#1,2,3 are all included

#4, each project is linked to where the code (both vulnerable and/or fixed)
lives

#5...
phpMoneyBooks, 1.0.2 and potentially prior versions
phpGradeBook, 1.9.4 and potentially prior versions
phpPaleo, 4.8b155 and potentially prior versions
hbportal, 0.1 and potentially prior versions
eticketing, no version numbering used *shrug*

#6 An e-mail was sent to cve@...re.org 7 days ago without response
#7 All open source
#8 Not embargoed

I think that should do it.

-Mark

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 03/15/2012 01:18 PM, Mark Stanislav wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > I was looking to receive CVEs for the following...
> >
> > 1) phpMoneyBooks (http://phpmoneybooks.com/) has an unauthenticated
> local
> > file inclusion (LFI) vulnerability
> > * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
> >
> > 2) phpGradeBook (http://phpgradebook.com/) has unauthenticated SQL
> Database
> > Exportation
> > * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
> >
> > 3) phpPaleo (http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppaleo/) has an
> > unauthenticated local file inclusion (LFI) vulnerability
> > * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
> >
> > 4) hbportal (http://sourceforge.net/projects/hbportal/) has a POST-based
> > SQL injection vulnerability
> > * Notified
> >
> > 5) e-ticketing (http://sourceforge.net/projects/e-ticketing/) has a
> > POST-based SQL injection vulnerability
> > * Notified & Response Received
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> Removed the "no" this time to avoid ambiguity=)
>
> More info would be helpful. Some draft guidelines:
>
> Information for CVE request, REQUIRED:
>
> 1) Email address of requester (so we can contact them)
> 2) Software name and optionally vendor name
> 3) At least one of (to determine is this a security issue):
>  1. Type of vulnerability
>  2. Exploitation vectors
>  3. Attack outcome
> 4) For Open Source at least one of:
>  1. Link to vulnerable source code or fix
>  2. Link to source code change log
>  3. Link to security advisory
>  4. Link to bug entry
>  5. Request comes from project member (a.k.a. "trust me, it's a problem")
> 5) Affected version(s) (3.2.4, 3.x, current version, all current
> releases, something)
> 6) Whether or not this has been previously requested (i.e. on OSS-Sec or
> to cve-assign)
> 7) Is this an Open Source or commercial software request
> 8) Is this an embargoed issue (if yes and commercial: send to
> cve-assign, if yes and open source: send to vs-sec?)
> 9) IF multiple issues are listed please list affected versions for each
> issue and/or who reported them (so we can determine CVE split/merge).
>
> Information for CVE request, REQUESTED:
>
> 1) More of the above information of course
> 2) Software version(s) fixed (if available)
> 3) For closed source any of the information from "For Open Source at
> least one of:"
> 4) Any additional information
>
>
> --
>
> -- Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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.