[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:33:21 +0100
From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: libass ass_outline.c signed integer overflow
Hi Ian,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 06:15:28PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2020-11-19 11:54, David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> > I read through the issue discussion. As best as I can tell, no one
> > filed for a CVE, so there was no CVE. Did I misunderstand something?
> >
> > If my understanding is correct, that is *NOT* a failure of the CVE
> > process.
>
> As it often happens to me, what I wrote was too brief to be clear to
> everyone.
>
> The longer version would be something like:
>
> This is an example of a situation where no one filed for a CVE because
> of perceived hurdles in the process, even if the facts didn't justify
> the perception.
>
> Now of course Moritz tells us there is in fact a CVE and indeed I can
> locate the issue in Debian's security tracker. I guess it has been
> judged not serious enough to need fixing in buster. I disagree but
> clearly that is up to the maintainers.
What the no-dsa tag means: The issue will not warrant a dedicated
security upload with an advisory, but issues marked so called 'no-dsa'
can still be fixed as well in buster, via the regular point releases
(for instance the next one happing on 5th of december).
This though still requires someone to have spare resources and prepare
an actual upload to be included.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Salvatore
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.
