[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290524646.5990.4.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:04:06 -0500
From: Jon Oberheide <jon@...rheide.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Linux kernel address leaks
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 09:59 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On lun., 2010-11-22 at 18:54 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Oh, and if you get CVEs assigned, that kind of forces them to fix the
> > problem, right?
> >
> I'm not that sure (there are CVEs for issues considered too small by the
> developers involved, not only in Linux, which are still opened), and I'm
> not sure using CVE system for “blackmailing” is a good usage for that
> tool.
I think calling it "blackmail" is a bit hyperbolic. Rather, it's simply
the next step in the vulnerability disclosure process: (1) research
reports vulnerability to vendor; (2) vendor refuses to fix
vulnerability; (3) research discloses vulnerability and requests CVE.
Am I correct in assuming that it is acceptable procedure to assign CVEs
to unpatched vulnerabilities?
Regards,
Jon Oberheide
--
Jon Oberheide <jon@...rheide.org>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/F47C17FE
Fingerprint: B716 DA66 8173 6EDD 28F6 F184 5842 1C89 F47C 17FE
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
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.
