[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANO=Ty0ZOjCGL-iXCZ46FbSQ3i+fpGHBB6X1x2Agy9jftQ3ozA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:53:37 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: CVE ID Requests <cve-assign@...re.org>
Cc: oss-security <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: CVE's for SSLv2 support
Ok let me simplify:
If a crypto library (e.g. OpenSSL, NSS) supports AND enables SSLv2 by
default should it receive a CVE? Essentially we'd be saying "SSLv2 is so
bad, that supporting/enabling it by default in a crypto library is CVE
worthy" (essentially under the CVE assignment for "product makes a security
claim that it fails to do properly").
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@...hat.com
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.
