[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5306A872.2030401@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:14:26 +1100
From: Garth Mollett <gmollett@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: coley@...re.org
Subject: Re: Possible CVE Requests: several issues fixed in
Jenkins (Advisory 2014-02-14)
On 02/20/2014 09:49 AM, David Jorm wrote:
>>
>> Do some of these issue need a CVE assigned?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Salvatore
>>
>
> It looks to me as though at least some of these issues definitely need CVE IDs assigned. I reported SECURITY-105, and it is my opinion that this flaw needs a separate CVE ID to CVE-2013-7285. The Jenkins patch blocks DynamicProxyConverter from the Jenkins wrapper class XStream2, without changing the XStream library at all. This implements a less-general solution than the XStream patch for CVE-2013-7285, and the patch applies to a completely separate codebase (i.e. Jenkins itself,not XStream). Therefore it is my understanding that this flaw as it affects Jenkins qualifies for a unique CVE ID. When reporting this flaw to upstream, the Jenkins engineers agreed that it qualified for a unique CVE ID, and I offered to assign a CVE ID from the Red Hat CNA. This offer was refused, but then the advisory was released without a unique CVE ID, which is puzzling indeed.
>
> Could someone from MITRE please weigh in and assign CVE IDs as appropriate for these flaws?
>
Hi,
Is there any movement on this? The original request for CVE's came to
oss-sec on the 17th.
Thanks.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
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.
