[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BEEE4AD.9070409@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 13:15:09 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@...endedsubset.com>
To: paul.szabo@...ney.edu.au
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Mathematica on Linux
/tmp/MathLink vulnerability
On 5/14/2010 6:19 AM, paul.szabo@...ney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Marsh,
>
> Personal opinions (hoping not to start a flame war) on your questions:
Thanks.
>> 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.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists