[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:05:29 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE for Kali Linux
On 03/22/2015 09:54 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-03-22 09:49:12 -0600 (-0600), Kurt Seifried wrote:
> [...]
>> downloads of updates via HTTP with no other protection == CVE
>
> And in this case the updates are signed by a key trusted by a
> keyring baked into the OS, so given the presence of "other
> protection" sounds like no CVE needed?
Right but my original question is if a vendor explicitly tells people
not to check them ("download over http and check sums published over
http") is that CVE worthy? I can see both sides of the argument.
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 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.
