[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130828203921.GX32641@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:39:21 -0600
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: Re: CVE oops in GLSA 201308-05 (wireshark)
* [2013-08-28 14:10:10 -0400] cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>>I just saw via a Gentoo bug report that their GLSA 201308-05 advisory
>>mentioned some CVEs as related to wireshark that were incorrect.
>>
>>Instead of mentioning CVE-2013-{3560,3561,3562} they mentioned
>>CVE-2013-{3540,3541,3542}. I checked on MITRE's site and those three
>>are still reserved.
>>
>>I don't know who those three (354[012]) are assigned to, but you might
>>want to see if they've been used already or not and dupe them against
>>356[012] if they have not.
>
>Those are in use:
>
>http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2013-06/0085.html
>
>Airlive
>CVE-2013-3540. Cross Site Request Forgery(CWE-352) and Clickjacking(CAPEC-103)
>CVE-2013-3541. Relative Path Traversal(CWE-23)
>
>Grandstream
>CVE-2013-3542. Backdoor in Telnet Protocol(CAPEC-443)
Ok. I suspect that Gentoo has or will fix any self-published copies of
their GLSA but the ones that are archived still contain the incorrect
references. Not sure if you need/want to do anything... I just sent the
email as a heads-up for you.
--
Vincent Danen / 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.
