Re: Re: strings / libbfd crasher

[Hanno Böck <hanno () hboeck de>]

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up, I wanted to ask the basically
the same questions. I think your list gives some indication what we're
talking about.

I did quite a lot of fuzzing tests recently and have a bunch of issues
pending. Basically "all bugs should be fixed" so I'm reporting them to
the upstreams no matter what, but it's certainly worth a discussion if
every out of bounds read (or write) should be considered a sec issue
and have its own CVE.

In the past my stance on this was that every potential sec
vuln deserves a CVE. However given that sometimes CVEs were rejected
because they were not shown to be exploitable I feel this is currently
not shared by mitre.

I'd apprechiate if we had some clear guidelines that we could stick to
when requesting CVEs for these kinds of issues.

For the binutils case we could probably have some grouping CVEs or
just one for all the remaining ones (e.g. "multiple memory corruption
issues in binary parsers of libbfd" or something alike).
But this is also a generic question. E.g. I have two issues in
different gimp plugins pending - should they receive their own cve
because they affect different fileformats or just one? (or none because
both are only oob read)

cu,
-- 
Hanno Böck
http://hboeck.de/

mail/jabber: hanno () hboeck de
GPG: BBB51E42

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: