[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D1EB28A9-7BC2-49FF-96F0-4C6309839864@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:25:53 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifrie@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Alexander Batischev <eual.jp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Podbeuter podcast fetcher: remote code execution
I never spoke or advocated about delaying things or timelines and CVEs except in the sense I'd like to make it easier and get CVEs attached to things fast so that issues can be disclosed ASAP, ideally with a CVE. I want to have my cake, and eat it, and share it with everyone else.
-Kurt
> On Sep 17, 2017, at 10:23, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 09:59:11AM -0600, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>> many orgs (probably not open source distros run by
>> volunteers, but more big corps) literally do have a clock start ticking
>> when a CVE comes to light
>
> I think that's not a reason to delay disclosing an issue to everyone
> else until there's a CVE ID. If those orgs have such poor, limited, or
> maybe cost-saving processes (saving on not needing to bother with issues
> lacking CVE IDs, no matter how serious), it's their problem and their
> users'. They deliberately put themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
> So be it. This only reaffirms me in my suggested approach: public
> disclosure first, CVE next. So those big corps will have a reason to
> fix the issues anyway, just with their self-imposed delay.
>
> Alexander
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.
