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: <2023070329-mangy-dipping-2ebd@gregkh>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:05:15 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, 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 Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:35:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 05:00:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:08:00AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >   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 find one by themselves, for example by contacting
> > >   MITRE directly.  However under no circumstances will a patch inclusion
> > >   be delayed to wait for a CVE identifier to arrive.
> > > 
> > > This puts the responsibility for finding one in time on the reporter
> > > depending on what they expect, and if they want it in the commit
> > > message, they'd rather have one before reporting the problem.
> > 
> > Oh, nice wording, let me steal that!  :)
> 
> Yeah, this is good. The last sentence is a little hard to parse, so how
> about this, with a little more rationale expansion:
> 
> However under no circumstances will patch publication be delayed for
> CVE identifier assignment. Getting fixes landed takes precedence; the
> CVE database entry will already reference the commit, so there is no loss
> of information if the CVE is assigned later.

"simple is better" should be the key here, reading a wall of text is
hard for people, so let me just keep the one new sentance that Willy
proposed and if people still struggle with the whole CVEs and
security@k.o mess in the future, we can revise it again.

Also, there is not really a "CVE database", I think that's what NVD from
NIST does and CNNVD from China does, and "Something to be named in the
future soon" will do for the EU.  There is a "CVE List" at cve.org, but
that thing is always out of date, and for all of this I don't want to
have to try to explain it in our document as that's nothing we want to
mess with :)

thanks,

greg k-h