oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley () linus mitre org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Hanno [utf-8] B??ck wrote:
And again, are pure browser crashers considered security relevant?
CVE chooses to include them because: 1) In some cases, the crash is evidence of a more serious issue - but we do not have the resources to perform a deep investigation every time, and often, there are insufficient details. 2) While many users don't think it's important, some do. Since a typical browser/client is carrying multiple sessions at once, an attacker can cause a loss of data or loss of connectivity to unrelated sessions. While perhaps minor, it is technically a security problem because an attacker should only be able to impact the attacker's own session. 3) when even NULL pointer dereferences are sometimes exploitable, it seems safer to include them. CVE leaves it up to vendors to decide if a crasher is important enough for them to post an advisory. - Steve
Current thread:
- CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Hanno Böck (Apr 17)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Tomas Hoger (Apr 17)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Josh Bressers (Apr 17)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Steven M. Christey (Apr 17)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Hanno Böck (Apr 17)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Steven M. Christey (Apr 17)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Hanno Böck (Apr 18)
- Re: CVE request: firefox 2.0.14 ( Crash in JavaScript garbage collector) Hanno Böck (Apr 17)