Re: CVE-2022-21449 and version reporting

[Jeremy Stanley <fungi () yuggoth org>]

On 2022-04-28 14:12:04 +0000 (+0000), Seaman, Chad wrote:
[...]
> In what universe exactly are versions omitted from vulnerability
> reporting because a vendor “no longer supports that version”… this
> non-supported version is still vulnerable?

The alternative is what projects I work on do: If the oldest
supported version is vulnerable, then assume all unsupported
versions are also vulnerable unless someone is able to find evidence
to the contrary (we basically just always list <= the oldest fixed
version as vulnerable).

> Are exploit developers expected to check against the version of
> the vulnerable application during their exploit detonation to
> ensure they’re “only infecting supported versions?”.

Vulnerability managers' jobs aren't to make things easier for
exploit developers, quite the opposite in fact. My goal is to make
sure users know when they may be running vulnerable software and
disseminate fixes for all supported releases, where possible.

> Why is this being allowed… this is dangerous for everyone involved
> save for Oracle’s own ego or public image?

Speaking from the perspective of volunteer-run open source projects
like the ones I work on, there are only so many hours in the day so
we have to limit what versions of software we can effectively test
and fix. In our case, as I said, we just assume all older versions
that that are also vulnerable unless we happen to find information
to the contrary, but I can certainly understand if others have a
policy to only bother providing information about versions they
support (and flat out tell users to upgrade to a supported version).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: