Re: CVE Requests (maybe): Linux kernel: various info leaks, some NULL ptr derefs

[Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/07/2013 09:55 PM, Petr Matousek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:19:05PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > Kurt -
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 02:13:37AM -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> > > Bundling the following into a single CVE:
> > [...]
> > > Please use CVE-2012-6138 for these issues.
> >
> > I think this is wrong.  I would understand if those issues were
> > all in the same subsystem at least (or if you assigned
> > per-subsystem CVE IDs for these), but this is not the case.  Many
> > distros will fix some, but not the others, or not all at the same
> > time.  There's room for a little bit of bundling here, but not
> > that much.
>
> In the past we've usually assigned one CVE per issue even for info
> leak bugs. Or at least one CVE per subsystem, as Alexander says. I
> agree with Alexander that one CVE for about ~20 issues is not
> right.

Agreed (I was wrong, not much more to say than that =). It sounds like
Mitre will be handling the additional CVEs for this issue as I
understand it.

Now my question is how concise do we go with the Linux kernel as far
as subsystems go? E.g. file subsystem vs network subsystem seems
obvious, and say ext4 vs. MSDOS file system code seems obvious but
what about network drivers (same chipset? same maker, different
chipsets? or like ext2 vs ext3 vs ext4).

- -- 
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
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=BGxQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----