RE: heap overflow in procmail

["Christey, Steven M." <coley () mitre org>]

Kurt,

> So this is potentially a very bad issue, so I'm assigning a CVE, sorry
> Mitre (safe assumption: they're all tucked away in bed like normal sane
> people =).

That's actually an unsafe assumption, which has introduced a vulnerability into your logic.  There are counter-examples 
by two different CVE CNA team members in this thread alone.

For additional evidence that counters your assumption, here are a handful of recent oss-security posts by cve-assign 
between midnight (Eastern time) and 4 AM.  This list is far from complete.
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/09/02/1
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/13/3
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/13/4
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/13/5
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/14/2
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/14/5
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/15/3

When an issue has been made widely public to the security industry, CNAs are expected to attempt to coordinate more 
closely with MITRE before assigning a CVE ID themselves.  This helps to reduce confusion and duplicates.  Anything 
posted to oss-security is considered "widely public."

- Steve