Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:09:52 +0000 From: "Christey, Steven M." <coley@...re.org> To: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: CVE Requests (maybe): Linux kernel: various info leaks, some NULL ptr derefs This is a major challenge for CVE, but to do bug-based assignments will make CVE too dependent on the amount of vulnerability details that are available at the time of a CVE request - and those details vary widely. While it is a problem for the distros, I have generally had the perspective that it is ultimately their responsibility to track which portions of a CVE are fixed, and when. Note - the more fundamental problem here is that CVE is being used much earlier in the disclosure process than it used to be, and it's basically being used as a universal bug ID. I strongly encourage the Linux community to consider adopting their own ID scheme. I made comments similar to this a couple years ago, but I can't easily find the reference right now. - Steve -----Original Message----- From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:19 AM To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [oss-security] CVE Requests (maybe): Linux kernel: various info leaks, some NULL ptr derefs Kurt - On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 02:13:37AM -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote: > Bundling the following into a single CVE: [...] > Please use CVE-2012-6138 for these issues. I think this is wrong. I would understand if those issues were all in the same subsystem at least (or if you assigned per-subsystem CVE IDs for these), but this is not the case. Many distros will fix some, but not the others, or not all at the same time. There's room for a little bit of bundling here, but not that much. Alexander
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.