Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 00:20:34 +0100 From: Hanno Böck <hanno@...eck.de> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: strings / libbfd crasher Hi, Thanks for bringing this up, I wanted to ask the basically the same questions. I think your list gives some indication what we're talking about. I did quite a lot of fuzzing tests recently and have a bunch of issues pending. Basically "all bugs should be fixed" so I'm reporting them to the upstreams no matter what, but it's certainly worth a discussion if every out of bounds read (or write) should be considered a sec issue and have its own CVE. In the past my stance on this was that every potential sec vuln deserves a CVE. However given that sometimes CVEs were rejected because they were not shown to be exploitable I feel this is currently not shared by mitre. I'd apprechiate if we had some clear guidelines that we could stick to when requesting CVEs for these kinds of issues. For the binutils case we could probably have some grouping CVEs or just one for all the remaining ones (e.g. "multiple memory corruption issues in binary parsers of libbfd" or something alike). But this is also a generic question. E.g. I have two issues in different gimp plugins pending - should they receive their own cve because they affect different fileformats or just one? (or none because both are only oob read) cu, -- Hanno Böck http://hboeck.de/ mail/jabber: hanno@...eck.de GPG: BBB51E42 Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
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.