[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F15275E.8030700@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:16:38 +0530
From: Huzaifa Sidhpurwala <huzaifas@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>, Agostino Sarubbo <ago@...too.org>
Subject: Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities
On 01/16/2012 01:19 AM, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>
> I agree in principle, however in practice this is a lot of work (as you
> well know =). I guess my question/concern would be is who does the
> research to verify all this, and what if it varies by version (i.e. it
> is 6 separate issues in an older version but the newer version combined
> some code into a common library for example so it's only a single issue,
> but with multiple avenues of attack/etc.). In other words a lot of
> potential work.
I did some research, with details available at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773726#c2 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773726#c3
In my opinion only 1 and 2 (ie ws bug 6663 and ws bug
6670) should be allocated a CVE.
Others are application crashes.
--
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala / Red Hat Security Response Team
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.
