Re: Qualcom (and other) Android CVE IDs

I suppose one of the charts in the deck we reviewed in the past few weeks addresses this problem where number of CVEs is reserved but not 'published.'
If Qualcomm (and others) are publishing the CVEs without submitting the descriptions back to Mitre, shouldn't someone be reaching out to them to 'remind' them of the process?
Or would this be a full time job for someone?



Regards,


Beverly M Finch, PMP
PSIRT Program Manager
Product Security Office

7001 Development Drive
Office 3N-C1
Morrisville, NC  27560

+1 919 294 5873
beverlyfinch@lenovo.com



Lenovo.com 
Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Blogs | Forums

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org [mailto:owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org] On Behalf Of kseifried@redhat.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Art Manion; cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Qualcom (and other) Android CVE IDs

On 06/06/2017 08:25 AM, Art Manion wrote:
> Good to see CVE used to identify vulnerabilities:
>
>
> https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-06-01#qualcomm-close
> d-source-components
>
> but there's little or no information about any of these vulnerabilities.  Lots of RESERVED.
>
> This touches on the use of CVE for "internal" finds.  There's value in having a public label, but the lack of even summary information (minimal CVE entry) is problematic.
>
>  - Art

Also the thread on oss-sec:

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2017/q2/378

With some interesting notes like:

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2017/q2/380

=======
I don't know about apple itself but in the clusterfuzz reports I see 4 public bugs about sqlite. However they have a very small (2 days) range of regression, i.e. a commit made in those two days causes the problem.
I didn't check, but I suspect they didn't go in any release.

FTR, the time you are seeing in the regression range is UTC:
https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues/563

At this point I don't know if apple referer to those issues or the mentioned issues are not public.

--
Agostino Sarubbo
=======

Basically these issues have CVE's but I (nor anyone else really) has any clue what is actually affected and if we need to deal with it or not.
Kind of defeats the point :P.



--

Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993 Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@redhat.com