[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160120071208.GA14085@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:12:08 +0100
From: Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: 2015 kernel CVEs
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:51:54AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:00:57PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
> > > On 01/19/2016 03:28 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >> I like to look back over old CVEs to see how we could do better. Here
> > >> is the list from 2015. I got most of this information from the Ubuntu
> > >> CVE tracker. Thanks Ubuntu!. If it doesn't have a hash that means it
> > >> might not be fixed yet.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> CVE-2015-4170 cf872776fc84: tty: hang in tty
> > >
> > > Makes no sense that this was assigned a CVE.
> > > I fixed this _2 yrs before_ it was reported and the patch was CC'd stable.
> >
> > I'm guessing the CVE was assigned because there are distributions that
> > ship based on kernels earlier than 3.13. Those distributors need to
> > verify if they have the fix, etc.
>
> Yes, that's what happened here, Red Hat asked for it from what I
> remember. I complained loudly on the oss-security list about it, but oh
> well...
The question for CVE assignment is more if this bug existed in shipped kernel releases, not
when it was fixed in relation to assignment.
Ciao, Marcus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
