[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100503204900.24b051e6@foo.fgeek.fi>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 20:49:00 +0300
From: Henri Salo <henri@...v.fi>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: bressers@...hat.com, dan j rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com>, coley
<coley@...re.org>
Subject: Re: CVE request: lxr
On Mon, 3 May 2010 13:34:05 -0400 (EDT)
Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com> wrote:
> ----- "Henri Salo" <henri@...v.fi> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 May 2010 09:31:16 -0400
> > Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I discovered and reported this bug at the same time as two other
> > > XSS issues, including the one covered by CVE-2009-4497. While
> > > the commit may be a few days apart for some of these, I think
> > > they can safely fall under the same CVE, unless it's standard
> > > practice to assign CVEs for each of several related minor issues.
> >
> > Several XSS-vulnerabilities can have one CVE at least when those
> > vulnerabilities are fixed at the same time.
> >
>
> In this instance, I would assign it a new ID, as the old one already
> exists and doesn't note both XSS fixes (it is possible someone fixed
> just the one XSS and not both in an update).
>
> I've CC'd Steve Christey, for a second opinion.
>
> Thanks
My sentence was for normal cases. I have seen several reports with
multiple XSS-vulnerabilities. This usually is the case when someone
audits web-applications.
If the issue already has CVE-identifier already we should
definately assign new CVE for clarity.
---
Henri Salo
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.
