[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 13:31:56 +0100
From: !CVE Team <contact@...cve.org>
To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@...o.mi.org>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: !CVE: A new platform to track security issues not
acknowledged by vendors
Hello Mike,
Thank you for sharing you views.
On 09/11/2023 18:44, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> !CVE Team,
>
> From an open source perspective, the CNA(s) who might be assigning
> CVEs might not be a "vendor".
The !CVE project is not a static project where everything is defined the
very first day but an evolving project where all feedback is considered
to move towards improving the cybersecurity community.
We don't want to repeat what is already published in the
https://notcve.org site, just would like to share with you that as you
can read in the FAQ https://notcve.org/faq.html the !CVE is not only
considering "vendors" but other situations. Those are examples but we
plan to adapt according to the needs that arise, so in the future
different situations could qualify for a NotCVE.
As just one example, the GitHub CNA
> assigns tons of CVEs for open source software using GitHub's Security
> Advisories, but I wouldn't think of GitHub as a "vendor" for all the
> projects they host. How do you deal with CNAs who might be fine with
> assigning a CVE, but tagging it as DISPUTED?
This is easy, if there is a CVE assigned to an issue, no NotCVE will be
assigned, independently of the status/tagging. If finally a CVE is not
assigned then it may qualify for a NotCVE.
> Perhaps they don't want
> to build deprecated decades-old code to scope out the severity of a
> buffer overflow some random fuzzbot found. How would !CVE work for
> the Linux kernel, where most security fixes have git commit hashes but
> not CVEs? You don't seem resourced for that.
!CVE project is not looking after security issues but it is a platform
for unacknowledged security issues. We are processing NotCVE requests
following a procedure and assigning NotCVEs if they qualify, and for
that we don't have any resource problem.
>
> Overall, it seems like the prbolem you're trying to solve is "I'm not
> getting my unique tag from CVEs CNAs for my vulnerability". Your fix
> is "some other unique tag mechanism for vulnerabilities". I think I
> see where this might be going:
>
> https://xkcd.com/927/
>
At first glance it may seem like that, but if you look closer you would
realize that the case is different. !CVE project is tracking,
identifying and sharing security issues that otherwise would be randomly
published in blog posts, Twitter, etc, (in the best case) or just lost.
To obtain a NotCVE is not relevant whether someone is getting
difficulties to obtain a CVE for their vulnerability or not. To get a
NotCVE the issue must qualify. Please read the FAQ and if you find
something needs to be clarified or areas that overlaps, we will be happy
to update the project scope to clearly differentiate it from CVE.
> Have you considered, I dunno, working with the CVE folks, addressing
> what CNA rules you think may be broken? Not all vulnerabilties are
> created equal, and it may make sense to create more alternate systems
> to deal with that. But, forking off on your own should be done with
> some due diligence. The last thing the security community needsi are
> even more fractured efforts, as they deal with enough fractured stuff.
>
>
> My $0.02, FWIW...
> -Mike
>
This is not something new or unknown by MITRE or vendors. In some cases
MITRE is in favor of assigning a CVE but the vendor is against. In those
cases MITRE can do nothing and by experience we can tell you that at the
end CVE will not be assigned. Note that "the security issue" cannot be
even named ""vulnerability" because it is not (vendor is the only one
with this authority) according to MITRE rules[1]. If something is not a
"vulnerability" there is nothing to patch, nothing to track, etc. Since
those issues go unnoticed, they should be looked at even more cautiously
since they are probably not going to be fixed. Therefore !CVE platform
is far from a fork but it divulges security issues that otherwise will
remain hidden for most of us while recognizing the security researchers
effort by giving to them the deserved credit.
Again, thank you all for raising those questions, they help us improve
and better share the mission of the !CVE project.
Kind Regards,
!CVE Team
[1] https://cve.mitre.org/cve/cna/CNA_Rules_v3.0.pdf
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.
