oss-security - Re: Re: Some fun with tcp

Openwall Project		/home Owl JtR Pro crypt pam_passwdqc tcb phpass scanlogd popa3d msulogin / Linux BIND / advisories presentations / services donations / wordlists passwords / news community lists wiki CVSweb mirrors signatures
bringing security into open environments

Password Recovery Resources on the Net

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
cc: Wietse Venema <wietse@...cupine.org>, Tomas Hoger <thoger@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Some fun with tcp_wrappers

I'm not sure how to handle this from a CVE perspective, except:

 - if the API functions perform as documented, as Wietse says, then
   separate CVEs would need to be assigned for applications that misuse
   the API.

 - If there is a separate bug that causes tcp_wrappers to
   allow hosts in ways that are contrary to specification, then that
   would be treated as a problem in tcp_wrappers (whether it's from
   Wietse or some downstream modification).

 - If there's a problem due to incomplete documentation, that's a
   somewhat unique case for CVE that would require more thought (although
   not a first occurrence since Apple had a bad-documentation bug a year
   or two ago)

Jan and Tomas - Red Hat bug 491095 mentions CVE-2009-0786 but I'm not
clear on how to write it up given the state of the discussion at this
point.

- Steve

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.