full-disclosure - Re: Microsoft MCWNDX.OCX ActiveX buffer overflow

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: coley at mitre.org (Steven M. Christey)
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCWNDX.OCX ActiveX buffer overflow

Georgi Guninski said:

>So you are collecting 0days for free, put them in a lame database and
>whine more than a script kiddie this is a hard job?

I don't view it that way.

1) CVE is not a vulnerability database, per the FAQ on the CVE web
   site at http://cve.mitre.org/about/faq.html#A7 (though we are not
   blind to the fact that some people try to use it as a database
   anyways).

   The issues that we deal with in CVE have a bit of overlap with
   database maintainers.

2) In the past I have described the "0-day" aspects of CVE candidate
   number assignment, which includes situations in which CANs are
   assigned without MITRE involvement:

   http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2003-January/003601.html

3) I have spoken in the past of the challenges in maintaining
   vulnerability databases, e.g. at:

   http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2002-July/000186.html

   and in several other cases have commented on accuracy or
   consistency problems in vulnerability reports.

I think of this as sharing information and experiences for those who
may find it useful, as opposed to "whining."

- Steve