[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171022113629.GA24942@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:36:30 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Noam Rathaus <noamr@...ondsecurity.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Netlink XFRM socket subsystem NULL pointer dereference
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 01:21:19PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote:
> Noam Rathaus <noamr@...ondsecurity.com> writes:
> > I was forwarded by:
> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> >
> > To you regarding obtaining a CVE for the mentioned (in the title)
> > vulnerability
> >
> > I know a patch is being created and placed into mainstream code of the
> > Kernel
> >
> > I would like also to get a CVE for it, so that we can put that in the
> > advisory we will release
>
> Unfortunately CVE IDs are not assigned through this list anymore.
> Please use <https://cveform.mitre.org/> to request a CVE.
Marius is right. More detail on how we'd like this used as it relates
to also posting to oss-security:
http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/oss-security#cve-requests
"Previously, one could request CVE IDs for issues in Open Source
software from oss-security. This is no longer the case. Instead, please
start by posting about the (to be made) public issue to oss-security
(without a CVE ID), request a CVE ID from MITRE directly, and finally
"reply" to your own posting when you also have the CVE ID to add. With
the described approach you would only approach MITRE after the issue is
already public, but if you choose to do things differently and contact
MITRE about an issue that is not yet public, then please do not disclose
to them more than the absolute minimum needed for them to assign a CVE ID."
> > Do we need to give you the full technical writeup of the vulnerability?
>
> It's by no means required,
Actually, this is in fact required:
http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/oss-security#list-content-guidelines
"At least the most essential part of your message (e.g., vulnerability
detail and/or exploit) should be directly included in the message itself
(and in plain text), rather than only included by reference to an
external resource. Posting links to relevant external resources as well
is acceptable, but posting only links is not. Your message should remain
valuable even with all of the external resources gone."
Of course, only post the full detail once it's meant to be made public.
Noam's message so far is not sufficiently detailed for oss-security, for
when the issue is public (I get the feeling it might not be yet).
> but it would be appreciated if you could get
> back to this list with the advisory and CVE identifier when ready.
Right.
Finally, let's not assume that "kernel" implies "Linux", even though
it's usually the case in postings in here. Going forward, let's
explicitly say "Linux kernel" where appropriate (especially at the start
of message Subjects), so that we don't discourage reporting and
discussion of issues in other Open Source kernels in here. (This
thread's Subject should stay as it is not to add confusion, though.)
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.
