[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eba4214e-0ba3-454a-8450-71d9e8943aaa@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:06:59 +0100
From: Petr Menšík <pemensik@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Questionable CVE's reported against dnsmasq
If it is security issue, it needs to be rated correctly. It is okay to
assign CVE ID to issue, even if it is low or medium severity. Yes, we do
not backport medium or low CVEs always, especially if fixing them in
older versions is complicated and requires non-trivial rewriting.
We would backport even _important_ issues without CVE ids into releases
with _full_ support. But it has to have known reproducer and have no
simple workaround in configuration. I do not think this is such case.
If this is a problem in configuration generator, then fix the generator
or validate inputs from the user.
Petr
On 27/10/2025 21:40, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello Stuart,
>
>
> On 10/27/25 20:45, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2025/10/27 19:51, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>> Also, fixes without a CVE will not be backported downstream.
>>
>> That depends on the downstream.
>
> I'm happy to learn which downstreams backport security issues
> without a CVE, in practice. Do you have an example or two?
>
> Thanks and best
>
>
>
> Sebastian
>
--
Petr Menšík
Senior Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
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.
