Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <>
cc: Wietse Venema <>, Tomas Hoger <>
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

- 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.