[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:59:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@...hman.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Thousands of vulnerabilities, almost no CVEs:
OSS-Fuzz
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, Bob Friesenhahn 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".
Nevertheless, it is a bug. Fuzzers are amazing. Going forward, the
best plan is for more projects to include fuzzing as part of the
build process testing.
Question: is fuzzing useful for languages like Java/python? Obviously,
you eventually reach a native code module in both cases, but fuzzing
the entire virtual machine is cumbersome. Maybe native code libraries
for "safe" languages should include fuzzing as part of testing.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@...hman.org>
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
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.
