[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871u7ypqu8.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:17:03 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a vuln/CVE?
* Kurt Seifried:
> I care a lot less about what is "officially endorsed" or not endorsed
> and a lot more with what is actually going on. If a large percentage
> of people are exposed to a vuln, even if they "shouldn't" be then it
> would still get a CVE. I see a lot of CVEs that should never be
> exploitable, but people do crazy things/configurations.
But the present situation is really not that clear-cut. We have no
indicator of malicious intent from the current domain owner, and users
would still have to disable signature checking *and* they must have
configured the problematic repository. That's a little bit
far-fetched.
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.
