Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:40:37 +0100
From: Thomas Biege <>
Subject: Re: CVE id request: busybox

Hash: SHA1

Am 05.03.2013 10:27, schrieb Thomas Biege:
> Hi Kurt,
> Am 04.03.2013 03:26, schrieb Kurt Seifried:
>> On 03/03/2013 01:06 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>>>> This actually raises a good point, due to Debian being a 
>>>> secondary source in most cases (e.g. upstream has a bug
>>>> report which is then copied into Debian's bug tracker since
>>>> Debian ships it) the dates and sometimes information is
>>>> wrong.
>>> Aren't these problems true for any source whether it be
>>> primary, secondary, tertiary, or so on?
>> Sorry yeah I should have been more clear. This goes for all the 
>> major secondary sources (Debian, SUSE, etc.).
> I understand this. You provide a very valuable service for free
> here on the list and we should make as easy as possible for you to
> do your job.
>>>> I will no longer be issuing CVE's for issues brought up 
>>>> through the Debian bugtracker without an original source to 
>>>> back it up, otherwise more mistakes will happen which is not 
>>>> good.
>>> I don't understand the purpose of excluding an entire project's
>>>  sources.  Should redhat's bugzilla, gentoo, etc. also be 
>>> excluded for the same reason?  If not, why do they get special 
>>> treatment?
>> I didn't say I;'m excluding them. I simply will require an 
>> original source, in this case the year is probably wrong.
>>> Is there really a problem at all?  The debian report included
>>> the upstream commit, so you had a link to a primary resource 
>>> anyway. So, I think a simple solution to this 'problem' of 
>>> secondary sources is follow them to the primary one?
>> Yeah, and people can post them to the list. As stated before, I 
>> assign a lot of CVEs. One minute extra per CVE is about 20 hours
>> a year. It adds up. So from now on I'll be needing original
>> source confirmation in the emails to oss-sec.
> Unfortunately this will neither reduce your work-load nor increase
> the speed. Every CVE request should state exactly the source of the
> issue instead. I believe that the frequent posters on this list
> have no problem doing this.

After reading it again, that is what you already meant.


> Best, Thomas

- -- 
Thomas Biege <>, Teamlead MaintenanceSecurity, CSSLP
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend├Ârffer, HRB
21284 (AG N├╝rnberg)
- --
  Wer aufhoert besser werden zu wollen, hoert auf gut zu sein.
                            -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


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.