Home page logo
/

oss-sec logo oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: CVE Requests
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:47:48 -0600

On 03/15/2012 07:30 PM, Mark Stanislav wrote:
#1,2,3 are all included

? Sorry but I have literally no idea what that means.

#4, each project is linked to where the code (both vulnerable and/or
fixed) lives

#5...
phpMoneyBooks, 1.0.2 and potentially prior versions
phpGradeBook, 1.9.4 and potentially prior versions
phpPaleo, 4.8b155 and potentially prior versions
hbportal, 0.1 and potentially prior versions
eticketing, no version numbering used *shrug*

#6 An e-mail was sent to cve () mitre org <mailto:cve () mitre org> 7 days ago
without response
#7 All open source
#8 Not embargoed

I need the actual information for each one. Check out the nginx CVE
request today for a good example.


I think that should do it.

-Mark

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com
<mailto:kseifried () redhat com>> wrote:

    On 03/15/2012 01:18 PM, Mark Stanislav wrote:
    > Howdy,
    >
    > I was looking to receive CVEs for the following...
    >
    > 1) phpMoneyBooks (http://phpmoneybooks.com/) has an
    unauthenticated local
    > file inclusion (LFI) vulnerability
    > * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
    >
    > 2) phpGradeBook (http://phpgradebook.com/) has unauthenticated SQL
    Database
    > Exportation
    > * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
    >
    > 3) phpPaleo (http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppaleo/) has an
    > unauthenticated local file inclusion (LFI) vulnerability
    > * Notified, Response Received, and Patch Released
    >
    > 4) hbportal (http://sourceforge.net/projects/hbportal/) has a
    POST-based
    > SQL injection vulnerability
    > * Notified
    >
    > 5) e-ticketing (http://sourceforge.net/projects/e-ticketing/) has a
    > POST-based SQL injection vulnerability
    > * Notified & Response Received
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > -Mark
    >
    Removed the "no" this time to avoid ambiguity=)

    More info would be helpful. Some draft guidelines:

    Information for CVE request, REQUIRED:

    1) Email address of requester (so we can contact them)
    2) Software name and optionally vendor name
    3) At least one of (to determine is this a security issue):
     1. Type of vulnerability
     2. Exploitation vectors
     3. Attack outcome
    4) For Open Source at least one of:
     1. Link to vulnerable source code or fix
     2. Link to source code change log
     3. Link to security advisory
     4. Link to bug entry
     5. Request comes from project member (a.k.a. "trust me, it's a
    problem")
    5) Affected version(s) (3.2.4, 3.x, current version, all current
    releases, something)
    6) Whether or not this has been previously requested (i.e. on OSS-Sec or
    to cve-assign)
    7) Is this an Open Source or commercial software request
    8) Is this an embargoed issue (if yes and commercial: send to
    cve-assign, if yes and open source: send to vs-sec?)
    9) IF multiple issues are listed please list affected versions for each
    issue and/or who reported them (so we can determine CVE split/merge).

    Information for CVE request, REQUESTED:

    1) More of the above information of course
    2) Software version(s) fixed (if available)
    3) For closed source any of the information from "For Open Source at
    least one of:"
    4) Any additional information


    --

    -- Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team




-- 
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)


  By Date           By Thread  

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