Re: heap overflow in procmail

[Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>]

On 03/09/14 11:13 PM, Christey, Steven M. wrote:
> 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

Sorry, it was meant tongue in cheek, the main reason I assumed Mitre was
off because it came in relatively not super late in the day and no reply
from Mitre when I noticed it. I also wanted to avoid the notify you guys
then wait to confirm you weren't awake so I could get to bed early
(cause getting to bed early worked out for me today, sigh).

-- 
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature