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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202402141102.FA1428F1@keescook>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:02:30 -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 Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:45:19AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:43:32AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:35:24PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > Yes, this is totally wrong, it was the original first draft of the
> > document, that I did on my workstation, and then went on the road for 3+
> > weeks and I never sycned up when I got home with the updated version
> > that is on my laptop.  The updated version addresses this, as it was
> > rightly pointed out by the CVE group that this is not how a CNA is
> > supposed to only work.
> > 
> > Yet another reason why keeping changes private is a major pain, not only
> > for security ones!  :(
> > 
> > Let me send out the proper one after my morning coffee has kicked in and
> > I resolve the differences, and make the grammer fixes that Randy pointed
> > out...
> 
> To make it more obvious here, as others have pointed this out to me as
> well, here's the updated paragraph that will be in my v2 patch, with
> proper ';' usage:
> 
> 	No CVEs will be automatically assigned for unfixed security issues in
> 	the Linux kernel; assignment will only automatically happen after a fix
> 	is available and applied to a stable kernel tree, and it will be tracked
> 	that way by the git commit id of the original fix.  If anyone wishes to
> 	have a CVE assigned before an issue is resolved with a commit, please
> 	contact the kernel CVE assignment team at <cve@...nel.org> to get an
> 	identifier assigned from their batch of reserved identifiers.
> 
> Does that help explain the process better?

Yeah, that's great. It get qualified with the "automatic" bit, which
makes this clear now. Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook