Home page logo
/

oss-sec logo oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: CVE Requests
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:42:31 -0600

On 03/16/2012 04:26 AM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
On 03/16/2012 04:41 AM, Kurt Seifried wrote:

I need the actual info, please refer to:

http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/03/16/2
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/03/15/9
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/03/14/6
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/03/12/7


Those mails are all exemplary requests for CVE id's, ofcourse, but the
fact that they are all already fixed and released means that 100% of
the work is already done. At that point, assigning a CVE id is mostly
useless and is done as a "just for the record" thing.

Uh no. Tracking these issues is critical and it happens across dozens,
and in some cases hundreds of vendors (e.g. CVE-2009-3555).

The need for unified identifier for a particular issue is greatest
when discussing the problem and its potential solutions; Not how
someone actually solved it after it's already done. If CVE is to become
a thing for changelogs only, all those projects that don't use one
but rely on commit-messages instead won't use CVE id's at all, and the
usefulness of the CVE database dwindles.

If only it were that simple. Having worked for iSIGHT/iDefense prior to
Red Hat, and now at Red Hat, let me say this simply:

CVE Is 100% critical for security work at large scales.

Automated products/etc need reliable names for security issues.
Customers need reliable ways to ask questions (did you fix that OpenSSL
thing mentioned over in this random blog post? Oh you mean this CVE,
yes. etc.).


-- 
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 ]