[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6651351.AxBd7pCpa9@wanheda>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:42:05 +0200
From: Agostino Sarubbo <ago@...too.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Cve issue discussion
On Monday 07 August 2017 01:03:53 ne xo wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I am curious about issuing CVEs.
>
> I can see that a "NULL pointer dereference" or a bug where the exploit has
> not been verified also get a CVE.
>
> heap-overflows may or may not be exploitable.
>
>
> It takes a lot of time to analyze the exploit and create the exploit code.
>
>
> Is it right to be assigned a CVE only if it is exploitable?
>
>
> Or do you think all bugs need to get a CVE?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---
>
> ref
>
> ---
>
> [1]http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/04/10/17 - NULL pointer
> dereference
> [2]http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/04/10/15 -
> memory allocation failure
Hi.
Since you mentioned some issues reported by me, let me answer directly.
For the first, it is an undefined behavior, so actually you don't see the
crash.
Nowadays, the undefined behavior issues do not get anymore a CVE.
For the second, ASAN reports that the program want to use more that 64GB of
ram to execute the process so ASAN hangs the process. In this case is up to
the maintainer check whether there is a problem in the code or not, or it is
expected. The better double-check would be verify what happens without ASAN.
I'd like also to mention that MITRE assigns CVE after they analyze the
reported issue, so if an issue does not deserve a CVE, MITRE probably won't
assign accompanied by an explanation.
--
Agostino Sarubbo
Gentoo Linux Developer
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.
