[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.51.0911231748370.20369@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:50:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com>
cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVEs for nginx
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Josh Bressers wrote:
> > 3.) nginx SSL Renegotiation:
> > http://sysoev.ru/nginx/patch.cve-2009-3555.txt
> >
> > I know the last one contains a CVE number, nginx uses openssl and the
> > patch will disable renegotiation, maybe this deserves an own CVE?
> >
>
> We'll use the same ID. mod_ssl did a similar thing and used CVE-2009-3555. I
> think multiple IDs in this instance would actually create more confusion that
> it would solve.
The same core problem could be solved any number of ways, and I don't
think that should distract from the fact that there is just one core
problem. So using the same CVE is appropriate. (Now, if an interim fix
is later found to have its own vulns or be bypassed in a way that was not
originally advertised, that might need its own CVE.)
- 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.
