Release of CVEs

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@endpoint.com> wrote:

The release notes for the new version reference some CVEs that
have not been publically released yet. Are they slow, or is
this something that needs to be added to the release
process checklist?

My guess is that they are simply slow to refresh. If you look at
RedHat stuff they mark those CVEs with the same numbers in their bug
tracker (the database is not updated though).
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-5288
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-5289

It's also possible the wrong CVE was entered, but I don't see
one that seems to pertain to the issue described (and
CVE-2015-5288, -3166, -3167, -0243, -0244 are in the same boat).

As is CVE-2015-0241, which dates of February. This is way more than
slow... Perhaps we should contact cve at mitre dot org regarding that.
Thoughts?
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 10/11/2015 04:54 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

The release notes for the new version reference some CVEs that
have not been publically released yet. Are they slow, or is
this something that needs to be added to the release
process checklist?

These days MITRE is lagging 2-6 weeks behind publication for getting
CVEs on their website. That's why I didn't bother to link them from the
announcement.

I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about
it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them
what they need to be more prompt.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about
it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them
what they need to be more prompt.

http://cve.mitre.org/ has a "Contact Us" tab linking to the address I
mentioned. That may be a start as at this state this is far more than
6 weeks.
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about
it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them
what they need to be more prompt.

http://cve.mitre.org/ has a "Contact Us" tab linking to the address I
mentioned. That may be a start as at this state this is far more than
6 weeks.

I'm inclined to start by asking the Red Hat security guys, from whom
we obtained all these CVE numbers to begin with. Will check into it
tomorrow.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

I wrote:

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about
it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them
what they need to be more prompt.

http://cve.mitre.org/ has a "Contact Us" tab linking to the address I
mentioned. That may be a start as at this state this is far more than
6 weeks.

I'm inclined to start by asking the Red Hat security guys, from whom
we obtained all these CVE numbers to begin with. Will check into it
tomorrow.

According to the Red Hat guys, the fundamental problem is that Mitre like
to research and write up the official CVE descriptions themselves ...
which would be fine if they had adequate resources to do it in a timely
fashion, but they don't really. Apparently, most of our bugs are of low
enough severity to be way down their priority list. (Maybe we should
consider that a good thing.)

However, Red Hat did also point out a possible alternative: instead of
linking to the Mitre website, we could link to Red Hat's own repository
of CVE descriptions at
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/
for example
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-5289

This is not as unofficial as it might seem, because for several years now
Mitre has officially delegated responsibility for initial assignment of
CVE numbers for all open-source issues to Red Hat. (It's just final
wording of the descriptions that they're insisting on doing themselves.)

A quick browse through some of the relevant items says that this is at
least as good as cve.mitre.org in terms of the descriptions of the
security issues, but it is a bit Red-Hat-centric in that there's info
about which Red Hat package releases include a fix, but not about package
releases from other vendors such as Ubuntu.

As a former wearer of the red fedora, I'm not going to pretend to have
an unbiased opinion on whether we should switch our security-page links
to point to Red Hat's entries instead of Mitre's. But it's something
worth considering, given that we're seeing as much as a year's lag in
Mitre's pages.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 14/10/15 18:19, Tom Lane wrote:

I wrote:

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about
it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them
what they need to be more prompt.

http://cve.mitre.org/ has a "Contact Us" tab linking to the address I
mentioned. That may be a start as at this state this is far more than
6 weeks.

I'm inclined to start by asking the Red Hat security guys, from whom
we obtained all these CVE numbers to begin with. Will check into it
tomorrow.

According to the Red Hat guys, the fundamental problem is that Mitre like
to research and write up the official CVE descriptions themselves ...
which would be fine if they had adequate resources to do it in a timely
fashion, but they don't really. Apparently, most of our bugs are of low
enough severity to be way down their priority list. (Maybe we should
consider that a good thing.)

However, Red Hat did also point out a possible alternative: instead of
linking to the Mitre website, we could link to Red Hat's own repository
of CVE descriptions at
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/
for example
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-5289

This is not as unofficial as it might seem, because for several years now
Mitre has officially delegated responsibility for initial assignment of
CVE numbers for all open-source issues to Red Hat. (It's just final
wording of the descriptions that they're insisting on doing themselves.)

A quick browse through some of the relevant items says that this is at
least as good as cve.mitre.org in terms of the descriptions of the
security issues, but it is a bit Red-Hat-centric in that there's info
about which Red Hat package releases include a fix, but not about package
releases from other vendors such as Ubuntu.

As a former wearer of the red fedora, I'm not going to pretend to have
an unbiased opinion on whether we should switch our security-page links
to point to Red Hat's entries instead of Mitre's. But it's something
worth considering, given that we're seeing as much as a year's lag in
Mitre's pages.

regards, tom lane

Would be be possibly to link to the Red Hat pages, and (at least semi)
automate their replacement by the official pages when they become available?

Cheers,
Gavin

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers