Home page logo

oss-sec logo oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: Re: pwgen: non-uniform distribution of passwords
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley () rcf-smtp mitre org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:00:35 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Kurt Seifried wrote:

In this case we have something that tells you not to use an unsafe option but isn't exceedingly noticeable or clear (if it came up every time you used that option there would be a stringer case for no CVE). I'm sitting on the fence for this one (I can see it going either way), wouldn't mind some more opinions from the smart people on this list.

For CVE, if there is an insecure feature that is documented, but there are likely or proven scenarios in which an admin might be unaware of the insecurity of the feature, then we will often consider it for inclusion. In this case, we would write the CVE description in a way that emphasizes the admin's role in creating/introducing the issue.

A separate reason for inclusion would be if a product advertises a security feature, but the implementation does not achieve the claimed level of security.

- Steve

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]