Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:44:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@...ple.dallas.tx.us> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Thousands of vulnerabilities, almost no CVEs: OSS-Fuzz On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> >> Most oss-fuzz issue detections are not CVE worthy. For example, a >> one-byte read "heap overflow" is not likely to cause any actual harm >> but oss-fuzz would classify it as "heap overflow". > There's enough information in the report though to assign the severity > score depending on the access size, its type (read or write) the call > stack etc. > OSS-Fuzz deliberately doesn't do that now, but such scoring can be > done to prune the list of potential CVE candidates. Oss-fuzz does not take into account the important criteria which is the actual underlying size of the heap allocation. It is true that this is implementation specific, but if the underlying heap allocation is larger than the requested allocation, the program might not be vulnerable. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen@...ple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ Public Key, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/public-key.txt
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.