Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:46:30 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: heap overflow in procmail On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:44:12PM -0700, Tavis Ormandy wrote: > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > > > Unless I'm misunderstanding your report, the problem is in the formail > > utility which comes with procmail, not procmail itself. This should be > > clarified in the title of the vuln, perhaps as "heap overflow in > > procmail's formail utility" rather than "heap overflow in procmail". > > I'm not sure what "title" you mean, are you referring to my email subject? > If you are, I think "<problem> in <package>" is pretty reasonable, but > perhaps this is subjective (hah!). Yes, the email subject. "<problem> in <package>" seems reasonable, but when <package> is also the name of the main program in <package>, and the actual vuln is in a secondary program included with it, I think it's confusing. I'm not sure what percentage of procmail users also use formail along with it, but in general, there will be cases where <package> is extremely widely used but the program with the actual vulnerability of is obscure and mostly unused. Rich
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.