[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5135BD95.5030409@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:40:37 +0100
From: Thomas Biege <thomas@...e.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE id request: busybox
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am 05.03.2013 10:27, schrieb Thomas Biege:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Am 04.03.2013 03:26, schrieb Kurt Seifried:
>> On 03/03/2013 01:06 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>>>> This actually raises a good point, due to Debian being a
>>>> secondary source in most cases (e.g. upstream has a bug
>>>> report which is then copied into Debian's bug tracker since
>>>> Debian ships it) the dates and sometimes information is
>>>> wrong.
>
>>> Aren't these problems true for any source whether it be
>>> primary, secondary, tertiary, or so on?
>
>> Sorry yeah I should have been more clear. This goes for all the
>> major secondary sources (Debian, SUSE, etc.).
>
> I understand this. You provide a very valuable service for free
> here on the list and we should make as easy as possible for you to
> do your job.
>
>
>>>> I will no longer be issuing CVE's for issues brought up
>>>> through the Debian bugtracker without an original source to
>>>> back it up, otherwise more mistakes will happen which is not
>>>> good.
>
>>> I don't understand the purpose of excluding an entire project's
>>> sources. Should redhat's bugzilla, gentoo, etc. also be
>>> excluded for the same reason? If not, why do they get special
>>> treatment?
>
>> I didn't say I;'m excluding them. I simply will require an
>> original source, in this case the year is probably wrong.
>
>>> Is there really a problem at all? The debian report included
>>> the upstream commit, so you had a link to a primary resource
>>> anyway. So, I think a simple solution to this 'problem' of
>>> secondary sources is follow them to the primary one?
>
>> Yeah, and people can post them to the list. As stated before, I
>> assign a lot of CVEs. One minute extra per CVE is about 20 hours
>> a year. It adds up. So from now on I'll be needing original
>> source confirmation in the emails to oss-sec.
>
> Unfortunately this will neither reduce your work-load nor increase
> the speed. Every CVE request should state exactly the source of the
> issue instead. I believe that the frequent posters on this list
> have no problem doing this.
After reading it again, that is what you already meant.
Thomas
>
> Best, Thomas
>
>
- --
Thomas Biege <thomas@...e.de>, Teamlead MaintenanceSecurity, CSSLP
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
- --
Wer aufhoert besser werden zu wollen, hoert auf gut zu sein.
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRNb2VAAoJEJqHoVJVjr8DF/cIAIuKAHu5Z8ZklZA5PZA469I9
jWUid+XsdhDN6DGVMn2kGkujDmHEYW7Nz6iYKe+lDb3sEm/PlHGmcw+AWRQKSplQ
inMyyL+NO2HBJq9NYCY6Tr+Jgn0jazM/4/xif40wexZNTnYMM35qL829ymEYZFj5
rm+DbthL50pY9WkZ1foqK/5BOIu4mvfkjgFZhpq1GUvUyZuWjABX0VCmeD3tETC9
WpsRhPbn/CDm9i+LA6Z7gtpBlWLAfnPhD2DpfM8PPfSnJCLyXkzVCtDBoC7kLvdK
tHAJP3UxD1y+pArn5etD6VntcpcBaPLQv38H/tL/FFXbczegoMYVSzqmYOA/lPU=
=E+/g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
