Re: [Full-disclosure] Mathematica on Linux /tmp/MathLink vulnerability

[Marsh Ray <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/14/2010 6:19 AM, paul.szabo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Marsh,
> 
> Personal opinions (hoping not to start a flame war) on your questions:

Thanks.

>> A. Does anyone think there would be much gained by me requesting (or
>> insisting on) a CVE number?
> 
> I do not see the need for CVEs for such "trivial" (easily verifiable)
> problems.

It's becoming apparent that's trivial to some is deep hacking to others.

> I find them useful when problems or fixes are reported in
> "obscure" software (e.g. in binary-only proprietary distributions), so
> as to identify same-known-problem reports.

Maybe for multiple-affected vendor situations.

>> B. Does anybody actually care about local escalations any more, or is
>> everyone just expected to have their very own personal virtual private
>> cloud for a security boundary?
> 
> We each must protect our own cocoons.

It's easier if we can agree on a set of expectations and stick by them,
particularly for primitives like file permissions and process isolation.
If there's little agreement for a particular thing, I might want to
build that cocoon a little differently. Which is why I asked the question.

> Saving the world is impossible.

That's not been proven.

- Marsh

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/