Home page logo
/

oss-sec logo oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: Strange CVE situation (at least one ID should come of this)
From: cve-assign () mitre org
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:49:54 -0400 (EDT)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So if someone publishes an advisory stating "I have found a number of
security flaws in product X." Would that get the same sort of CVE ID?

CVE assignment at MITRE attempts to distinguish between "disclosures"
and "rumors" although admittedly this is not 100% successful. In the
specific case you mentioned, if there's no maintainer relationship
between "I" and "product X" and no other available context, then no
CVE is assigned.

More generally, there are various cases in which exactly the same
statement would have a different CVE assignment decision depending on
whether the statement came from a vendor or other software maintainer.
This has been mentioned here before; for example, see

  http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/12/30/4

- -- 
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (SunOS)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQlBRTAAoJEGvefgSNfHMdKAwH/icGoCMaheqgi4cQG4XsChlb
EaRDQLeN9XhaBp1pk7G+rnKaBNUBf25cVKKkTl8eJ/Y7zkP7eCU8G4aW5tjSBapw
wNRErtss6mGQjOUt0QtWw9RmbMPR/u9r3ulQvsi1Py2Zp9XSjloiAUrXcgumjdmQ
C/1SLGLRLNXPWOzhQvl8uPWCZLgoqhFX46/Knf61UX+Z62hwD7USDfE47MHdSj4b
C4SecVWSAUwWnlfSr94cV9bRWUdZ0JvR2+KtjytKA4wTXjeZXsi7FPvnY0TBCmU8
lE2gGZEzgzLbDcQqZU2Pk+WiH0jDSp8DmtxhCN/zV9ZvZAyaoBwE9BePBIofo0Q=
=3WP8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  By Date           By Thread  

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