[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550E289C.1060602@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:27:40 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Assign a CVE Identifier <cve-assign@...re.org>
Subject: Re: CVE for Kali Linux
On 03/21/2015 08:04 PM, Justin Steven wrote:
> Kali, like its upstream (Debian), signs packages using gpg.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt
>
> Kali provides sha1sums over https at their site to verify the .iso
> download, as well as providing gpg signatures for .iso files
>
> --
> Justin
So I guess we enter uncharted territory here. So my thought is this:
Vendor has front page that recommends doing something completely insane
and insecure (http/md5s/etc.). On the back end (good lucking finding
this) vendor does something sort of secure (gpg signing of packages, no
clue if key distribution is secure) but this is not really documented well.
Does this win a CVE or not? I personally think yes, yes it does.
Mitre as always is the final arbiter of what is cool. I mean what is a CVE.
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 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.
