oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Duplicate Request: CVE-2013-4444 as a duplicate of CVE-2013-2185
From: cve-assign () mitre org
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:02:53 -0400 (EDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Red Hat Product Security handled this issue as CVE-2013-2185
In cases of disputes about the validity of a vulnerability with respect to a specific threat model, it's sometimes possible to have multiple CVEs. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/CVE-2013-2185 says:
A remote attacker able to supply a serialized instance of the DiskFileItem class, which will be deserialized on a server, could use this flaw to write arbitrary content ... The Apache Tomcat team does not agree that this is a valid security flaw; they contend that an application performing untrusted deserialization is inherently insecure.
This suggests a completely general case in which the serialized instance could come from an arbitrary untrusted source in an application-specific way. Apparently, from the perspective of the Apache Tomcat maintainer, they are not interested in recognizing the completely general case as a vulnerability. Thus, from their perspective, there are no affected versions. The CVE-2013-4444 section of http://tomcat.apache.org/security-7.html discusses a much more specific threat model. From the perspective of the Apache Tomcat maintainer, this is recognized as a vulnerability with the affected versions of 7.0.0 through 7.0.39. Both parties apparently agree that changes such as: -public interface FileItem extends Serializable, FileItemHeadersSupport { +public interface FileItem extends FileItemHeadersSupport { should have occurred. However, there isn't agreement on exactly what is the motivation for making the change. - -- CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority M/S M300 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA [ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUSq9bAAoJEKllVAevmvmssaIIAKSliCKYS2sZMg5uANDmdCPs Hz4lJ1iI6+NLWLrkd5Gu6AKVWCbLLRYHLj8H6hNMNEcw3qUqiT9PGP4NygsHJe4h aqvV6WG6pMGxNn/NMOn+7Jn0NgjeeAcjmTEwxy45Qo7T/7Aw0znd3eKn6/kgkUPu LzNvwW9SdqhqjBVVTsE0mIp+zeDoTUnQcYn8Fsu/lqqsyFga6+2YoOQKySpDH5sT 0QMivZVYHPr94ucQ4Ihafmt/bKzrCLfLymZfbQP991nfWyXMA0bjIHA32gHySJSg gANZ3RGsFSR0Ftg4IudjPnPrQmh0f8tozfZmIJHFdJHA8A6C5suDtjhyn53iGfc= =Ts5Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- Re: Duplicate Request: CVE-2013-4444 as a duplicate of CVE-2013-2185 Arun Babu Neelicattu (Oct 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Duplicate Request: CVE-2013-4444 as a duplicate of CVE-2013-2185 cve-assign (Oct 24)