[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.51.0808141901250.17005@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
cc: oss-security+ml@...lde.de, coley@...re.org
Subject: Re: horde webmail edition < 1.1.1
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Tomas Hoger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:00:03 +0200 Nico Golde
> <oss-security+ml@...lde.de> wrote:
>
> > > > This should be a duplicate of CVE-2008-3330.
> > >
> > > Actually, (1) is covered by CVE-2008-3330, (2) probably never got an
> > > id. Bit more info on (2) here:
> > >
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452549
> > >
> > > Steven, can you please correct CVE description. Thanks!
> >
> > Hmm, actually I thought this would have been added after my
> > post on:
> > http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2008/07/28/3
> > which already mentions this.
>
> Ah, so actually both issue were previously mentioned here... I forgot.
> It seems that after you pointed out (2), no more CVE id was allocated
> in that thread.
OK, some followups:
1) CVE-2008-3330.2, for Turba, affects contact.php, which only exists in
Turba 2.2.
2) The Debian bug report seems to have found contact issues in Turba 2.1,
in browse.php:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492578#40
3) The code from Turba 2.1 looks quite different than the contact.php code
as quoted by Nico here:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2008/07/28/3
4) I haven't seen any mention of contact issues in Horde itself, is this
correct?
5) CVE-2008-3650, the "unspecified" issues based on a vague Horde
Groupware advisory, appears to line up closely with both
CVE-2008-3330.1 (obrowser) and CVE-2008-3330.2 (Turba contacts). Is
this sufficiently confirmed?
> It seems different ids should be used for (1) and (2), as different
> Horde project components are affected, also in different versions.
Difference in components is not treated as relevant for CVE purposes.
However, the different versions are. Question 3 is especially relevant
even in this case.
This might be a candidate for a SPLIT, but I'm generally reluctant to do
so after a CVE has been published, since we don't know how many people are
already using it...
- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
