linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Document the Linux Kernel CVE process

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]

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:35:24 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, security@...nel.org,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Document the Linux Kernel CVE process

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 07:48:12PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> +No CVEs will be assigned for unfixed security issues in the Linux
> +kernel, assignment will only happen after a fix is available as it can
> +be properly tracked that way by the git commit id of the original fix.

This seems at odds with the literal definition of what CVEs are:
_vulnerability_ enumeration. This is used especially during the
coordination of fixes; how is this meant to interact with embargoed
vulnerability fixing?

Outside of that, I welcome the fire-hose of coming identifiers! I think
this will more accurately represent the number of fixes landing in
stable trees and how important it is for end users to stay current on
a stable kernel.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook