[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151013142800.GA683@eldamar.local>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:28:00 +0200
From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: fweimer@...hat.com, cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray
Hi,
Disclaimer: I have not investigated the situation in detail:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:50:56PM -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
> In 0.7.0, the configure script has:
>
> --enable-bdjava enable BD-Java support (default is no)
>
> under "Optional Features" but we didn't find any documentation or
> comments suggesting that --enable-bdjava was recommended for general
> use cases at that time. Apparently, BDJSecurityManager development
> came after 0.7.0.
>
> In other words, our perspective is that the primary known mistake is
> that the Fedora packaging process chose a non-standard default
> behavior, and either didn't investigate or didn't document the risks.
> If anyone else independently chose --enable-bdjava for their package
> based on 0.7.0 or earlier, then they can have their own CVE ID.
Does that mean that in principle Debian would in principle recieve a
separate CVE ID, since it looks --neable-bdjava was passed there on
the build as well in earlier versions? Cf.
https://sources.debian.net/src/libbluray/1:0.6.2-1/debian/rules/#L4
Regards,
Salvatore
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
