[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006040744240.5055@localhost>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:48:41 +0300 (EEST)
From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@...hat.com>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, Jindrich Novy <jnovy@...hat.com>,
Florian Festi <ffesti@...hat.com>,
Matt McCutchen <matt@...tmccutchen.net>
Subject: Re: CVE Request -- rpm -- Fails to remove the SUID/SGID
bits on package upgrade (RH BZ#598775)
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Steven M. Christey wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Josh Bressers wrote:
>
>> I'm going to give both of these the same CVE id. The issues are very
>> related, and I had look at the CWE guide, they both seem to fall under
>> "CWE-281: Improper Preservation of Permissions"
>>
>> Steve, feel free to overrule me on this one.
>
> At a low level of granularity, it can be overkill to distinguish between
> closely-related flaw types.
>
> The factor of concern here is that Red Hat bug 598775 suggests that the first
> variant was committed to a changeset, but not the second. I can't (quickly)
> assess whether upstream committed changes for both variants, but if there's
> only a commit for the first one (and a public release), then maybe we
> consider these bugs as "almost-but-not-quite the same version" and assign a
> separate CVE.
The second part about POSIX file capabilities was realized shortly
afterwards while thinking of possible other similar cases, and has been
fixed too now:
http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=commitdiff;h=4d172a194addc49851e558ea390d3045894e3230
To my knowledge no distro actually uses the file capability support in RPM
though.
- Panu -
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.
