Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:27:43 -0400
From: Michael Gilbert <>
Subject: Re: Re: CVE request(?): gpg: improper file permssions
 set when en/de-crypting files

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Kurt Seifried <> wrote:
>> Any security weakness can qualify for the E in CVE.  Really the
>> point
> No, security vulnerabilities qualify, security hardening does not
> necessarily qualify.

Again E is for exposure, not vulnerability.

> In this case GnuPG respects umask. We can't assign a CVE for every
> single program that has potentially sensitive output and fails to
> ensure that the output is mode 0600 or whatever (what about extended
> access controls?). Some programs choose to enforce permissions within
> themselves (e.g. OpenSSH and key based authentication), but generally
> speaking makeing sure a program with potentially sensitive output is
> safe is the job of the system configuration, and you have several options:

Think about it this way.  I open a file with mode 600 in vim, edit it,
save it, and find it with mode 644?  That would be an exposure, would
it not?

Again, about as minor as you could get, but its still an E.

Best wishes,

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.