Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:35:27 -0400 From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: On anonymous CVE assignments On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@...il.com> wrote: > *CVE*-*2016*-*3751*(H) > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> > wrote: > >> Also if projects don't like "Surprise" CVEs one way to deal with that is >> to >> request the CVE's themselves when they know something is a security >> vulnerability. Also making it easy to contact them helps, the harder you >> make it for a security researcher to deal with you, the less likely they >> are to. >> > > It's hard to do that when a "surprise" CVE was never sent to the project, > for example *CVE*-*2016*-*3751*(H) which just appeared in an Android > security > bulletin. It claims that libpng has a bug that allows privilidge > escalation > and was reported 3 Dec 2015. I'm guessing that it is a duplicate of > CVE-2015-8126 or CVE-2015-8472, but it's hard to tell for sure without > seeing it. All I've been able to find out is that it is a "reserved" CVE, > with > no clue as to who reserved it. > I still haven't seen the CVE, but it seems that it is a report against a fork of libpng, that had fallen several years out-of-date, and the CVE is just a private catch-all for updating the fork to current libpng status. > Glenn Randers-Pehrson > libpng custodian > >
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.