linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: clarify CVE handling

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

Message-ID: <202306301114.E199B136@keescook>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:18:37 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        security@...nel.org, corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: clarify CVE
 handling

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 09:14:21AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> The kernel security team does NOT assign CVEs, so document that properly
> and provide the "if you want one, ask MITRE for it" response that we
> give on a weekly basis in the document, so we don't have to constantly
> say it to everyone who asks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst | 11 ++++-------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
> index f12ac2316ce7..8b80e1eb7d79 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
> @@ -79,13 +79,10 @@ not contribute to actually fixing any potential security problems.
>  CVE assignment
>  --------------
>  
> -The security team does not normally assign CVEs, nor do we require them
> -for reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and
> -may delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier
> -assigned ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact the private
> -linux-distros list, described above. When such a CVE identifier is known
> -before a patch is provided, it is desirable to mention it in the commit
> -message if the reporter agrees.
> +The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for
> +reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may
> +delay the bug handling.  If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier
> +assigned, they should contact MITRE directly.

Hmm. The language about "assigned ahead of public disclosure" was added
intentionally due to trouble we'd had with coordination when a CVE was
needed, etc. Additionally, it IS preferred to have a CVE in a patch when
it IS known ahead of time, so I think that should be kept. How about
this:


diff --git a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
index 82e29837d589..2f4060d49b31 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
@@ -81,13 +81,12 @@ the email Subject line with "[vs]" as described in the linux-distros wiki:
 CVE assignment
 --------------
 
-The security team does not normally assign CVEs, nor do we require them
-for reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and
-may delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier
-assigned ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact the private
-linux-distros list, described above. When such a CVE identifier is known
-before a patch is provided, it is desirable to mention it in the commit
-message if the reporter agrees.
+The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for reports
+or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may delay
+the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier assigned
+ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact MITRE directly.
+When such a CVE identifier is known before a patch is provided, it is
+desirable to mention it in the commit message if the reporter agrees.
 
 Non-disclosure agreements
 -------------------------

-- 
Kees Cook