[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [CVEPRI] CVE candidate issues - handling new candidates
Just a few initial thoughts, 1) I think that as the CVE initiative becomes more well-known, i.e., tools reflect CVE mappings, Security Sites begin to reflect CVEs, as Securityfocus is doing (search works well by the way!), users will have more knowledge through exposure. I would think a brief concise statement along with the CAN # would help, such as "CVE# pending research and validation" would keep the confusion to a minimum. Perhaps each site that reflects CVE-compatability needs to have a blurb on the CAN/CVE process with a "for more details" link to the MITRE CVE site. 4) Add the CAN# as soon as possible after the public announcement or possibly implement a procedure where somewhere between the coordination with the vulnerable software vendor and public announcement, a CAN# is applied. Still lots of discussion to do and agreement to reach, hopefully some will come out of next week's telecon. -mike -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@LINUS.MITRE.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:06 PM To: email@example.com Subject: [CVEPRI] CVE candidate issues - handling new candidates All: Now that CVE is public, we need to address some issues related to CVE candidates. --------------snip---------8<---------8<---------------- *** AN APPROACH *** Here's what I suggest as an approach for dealing with new vulnerability information at this time. It allows us to move forward on some issues that can be acted upon now, while taking the proper time to resolve longer-term issues. 0) We treat backlog issues independently of the issues related to new information. 1) We take steps to educate the public about candidates now. Education could take the form of (a) web pages on the CVE web site describing the differences between candidates and CVE entries, (b) short statements in any forum where candidate numbers are used (e.g. advisories or mail messages), and (c) additional clarifications by Board members in various forums where the subject comes up. 2) With me continuing to act as sole CNA, I could interact with Board members who have a desire to obtain candidate numbers for new information. - Submissions would be limited to new vulnerabilities ONLY (for now) - The submission MUST be ready for public dissemination (or already publicly known) - Submitters should only do submissions for vulnerabilities which they are the first to announce or publicize (this reduces "noise" of many Board members sending me the same submission). An alternate approach would be to have different submitters with different expertise (e.g. Windows NT vs. Unix) to focus on a set of problems - The submission includes a short description and references, i.e. looks very much like a candidate proposal - I then give them a candidate number (or numbers) to use - The candidates are packaged up and proposed to the Board list on a weekly basis (to reduce traffic on the list) - Interested Board members can request to be emailed directly when new candidates arise, instead of waiting for the weekly posting This allows for some consistency across candidates while reducing duplication and other problems. Restricting the request for candidates to new information, *and* to the original source of the information, reduces the effort required in this first step. This also allows me to continue to "schedule" and cluster content decision debates accordingly so that we avoid discussing too many technical issues at the same time. As various issues are resolved (e.g. database design, content decisions, etc.) these experiences could be used to begin a "training manual" for other CNA's. By having the candidate submitters send information to me in a "near-candidate" format, it allows prospective CNA's to begin to identify and address their own issues. 3) We provide a candidate status page on the CVE web site, including the capability to download candidate information in various formats (e.g. text, HTML, CSV). The status information should be detailed enough to allow Board members to view which candidates they've voted on. 4) We delay creating a forum for the Board to discuss non-public information until some of these other issues have been sufficiently addressed. But with the public being educated, most first-time advisories could at least include candidate numbers. What do you think about this approach?