oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions
From: Jerome Athias <athiasjerome () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:51:50 +0300
We also have this "Is File Version Comparison Sufficient Over Time?" discussion in the OVAL Developer ml. Yes, a reference to a commit is good to have, if you have time/resources for manual vulnerability analysis There is a trade-off, but I guess the point here is more on how to increase automation for mitigation/remediation of software vulnerabilities. Operation Rosehub is one example illustrating why it's important On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Brian May <brian () linuxpenguins xyz> wrote:
Ludovic Courtès <ludo () gnu org> writes:Some CVE entries do not specify the version of the package(s) they apply to. For instance, the software list for CVE-2016-10165 contains “cpe:/a:littlecms:little_cms_color_engine”, which theoretically means that it applies to any version of lcms. The problem is automated tools cannot exploit such entries in practice because they cannot tell which package versions are affected.I am not sure the software version helps that much. It can lead to incorrect decision. For example, for security flaw B upstream might say versions before Y.Y.Y are not applicable - lets say version X.X.X < Y.Y.Y and as such as OK, because the do not contain the vulnerable code. In fact, somebody could check the code and mark this security flaw as not applicable. Meanwhile, somebody else gets around to adding another (earlier) security patch for A to Y.Y.Y. This security adds the vulnerable code for B. Anybody making a quick inspection would not notice now that Y.Y.Y patched for A is now vulnerable to B. In fact B was already marked as not vulnerable, so there may not even be need to look at it again (not sure how to solve this problem). While a "fixed in version" is useful, a pointer to a commit that fixed the problem would be even better - and means less speculation on which commit actually fixes the issue. In fact some upstreams won't even answer bug reports asking if security issues has been fixed or not. -- Brian May <brian () linuxpenguins xyz> https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
Current thread:
- Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Ludovic Courtès (Mar 15)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Simon McVittie (Mar 15)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Seth Arnold (Mar 15)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Leo Famulari (Mar 15)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Kurt Seifried (Mar 15)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Jerome Athias (Mar 16)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Jerome Athias (Mar 16)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Leo Famulari (Mar 15)
- Re: Dealing with CVEs that apply to unspecified package versions Jerome Athias (Mar 18)