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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 13:15:09 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <>
Subject: Re: Mathematica on Linux
	/tmp/MathLink	vulnerability

On 5/14/2010 6:19 AM, wrote:
> Dear Marsh,
> Personal opinions (hoping not to start a flame war) on your questions:


>> A. Does anyone think there would be much gained by me requesting (or
>> insisting on) a CVE number?
> I do not see the need for CVEs for such "trivial" (easily verifiable)
> problems.

It's becoming apparent that's trivial to some is deep hacking to others.

> I find them useful when problems or fixes are reported in
> "obscure" software (e.g. in binary-only proprietary distributions), so
> as to identify same-known-problem reports.

Maybe for multiple-affected vendor situations.

>> B. Does anybody actually care about local escalations any more, or is
>> everyone just expected to have their very own personal virtual private
>> cloud for a security boundary?
> We each must protect our own cocoons.

It's easier if we can agree on a set of expectations and stick by them,
particularly for primitives like file permissions and process isolation.
If there's little agreement for a particular thing, I might want to
build that cocoon a little differently. Which is why I asked the question.

> Saving the world is impossible.

That's not been proven.

- Marsh

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

Powered by blists - more mailing lists