[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:45:48 -0500 (EST)
From: cve-assign@...re.org
To: vdanen@...hat.com, kseifried@...hat.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: TLS CBC padding timing flaw in various SSL / TLS implementations
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>cc'ing cve-assign to see if they can provide some guidance here. I also
>noticed that OpenSSL has a CVE for this (I'm assuming that the
>CVE-2012-2686 issue is _not_ the same thing, but that CVE-2013-0169 is
>this issue).
>
>Since it's a weakness in TLS/DTLS itself, from my understanding, and not
>necessarily in a particular implementation, I'm not sure if this
>qualifies as one CVE for the weakness, or if it needs one per
>implementation.
>
>MITRE, can someone provide some guidance on this?
[ This is mostly directed to Red Hat at this point. We'll expand to
the other recipients or vendors later. ]
We're not exactly sure that MITRE has the next step here. A CVE
exists, CVE-2013-0169, that was issued by the Red Hat CNA. When the
CVE assignment was made, presumably one or more persons at Red Hat had
a working understanding of what the name CVE-2013-0169 means. (For
example: was the CVE assigned with a multi-vendor scope in mind? Was
the CVE assigned to cover the entirety of the content of the
www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/TLStiming.pdf research paper?) MITRE would, in
general, want to preserve this original meaning if it makes sense to
do that. Because there's no specific statement on this list about what
CVE-2013-0169 means, we'd next go to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-0169
to see if that may be a canonical statement of what CVE-2013-0169
means. But there's nothing there yet.
Before offering a guess from MITRE, we'll wait for some more
information.
- --
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (SunOS)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJREUKdAAoJEGvefgSNfHMdf7QH/1Pwhz88Getd4QEG5W7aM4Xy
Wyu9c+HxX/PdkqmEcJuWXRvfMVPex9Gv8wD6qCGGQLIX6aHp2gLIrqjfOlUrHmoD
5adHOPhJRAGM4UxZPKM7Y7KU8/etoZGQeJsuH1EUNUIzZmG6pJN2l3++j0vpNoN9
12r4pDHvop3LCY1kMz75uarC+7vKD63xu+jvCQWNqVFV/gOmCkknNq9wLfZWTg+L
xA1sooDw80Vkdrv6kIhMSCbdtZ/GqAv4R0b7CDyCuRJOqT1Ml0P/JiE0n0DSjR3u
1FsqEw2RtkfzgDKJQbcm4n4miuwh5da9hCMR/aY4jL/bKT5Cy/MlggAb+VJW3mg=
=a2X7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
