[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qtybOoJgpe_bD179rEOiVuu1kEWFGVmF8jM8RNx--0_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:53:41 -0400
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: CVE request for Calibre
Just do clarify: Issues 1 through 7.1 (8 issues) were released with the
current version that has been out for quite some time now. These require a
CVE. Issues 8 through 14 are ones introduced only during development and
were not released, and do not need a CVE.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 16:51, Steven M. Christey
<coley@...-smtp.mitre.org>wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I haven't followed the Calibre saga too closely, barring glancing through
> the bug report comments.
>
> If bugs are introduced into a development version but also fixed within
> that same version, then unless there's some strong evidence that the dev
> version is extensively used or distributed to the public, then (in general)
> it would not get a CVE. (The Linux kernel is a special case depending on
> what versions you consider to be "development.")
>
> - 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.
