|
|
Message-ID: <cf80acf8-29a3-4da9-a4a5-9dc11f4aa142@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 15:18:34 -0700 From: Matthew Fernandez <matthew.fernandez@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Questionable CVE's reported against dnsmasq Hi Sebastian, On 10/27/25 13:40, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Hello Stuart, > > > On 10/27/25 20:45, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> On 2025/10/27 19:51, Sebastian Pipping wrote: >>> Also, fixes without a CVE will not be backported downstream. >> >> That depends on the downstream. > > I'm happy to learn which downstreams backport security issues > without a CVE, in practice. Do you have an example or two? E.g. the Graphviz 2.40.1-3 update in Debian¹ appears to have cherry picked bd97cff688f7a7b85b6f1262e14eb1cac0862fcd² that went into upstream release 2.42.0. AFAIK the underlying issue never received a CVE. Speaking as one of the upstream maintainers, there seems very little logic to me as to which Graphviz patches get backported and which do not. I suspect it is just whatever users file requests for.³ Ubuntu has also started carrying some modified versions of Graphviz components under the category “Ubuntu Pro”. The changes there seem to be exclusively backported CVE fixes, so this supports the point that CVEs carry some weight. OTOH as the Graphviz project is not a CNA nor requests CVEs, the actual CVEs against Graphviz are just an arbitrary subset of bugs fixed, so not really a useful thing to index on. ¹ Scroll down in https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/g/graphviz/graphviz_2.42.4-3_changelog ² https://gitlab.com/graphviz/graphviz/-/commit/bd97cff688f7a7b85b6f1262e14eb1cac0862fcd ³ E.g. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075904
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.