|
|
Some corrected URLs for the candidates: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2000-0317 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-1999-0818 As an addendum, patches that are described in *source code* are much more concrete and often give enough details for one to distinguish between two problems, so I believe they can play a factor in this. If you see a patch that cleanses user input before feeding it to a system() call, and changing a strcpy() to a strncpy() at some different point in the code, then I'd say that's pretty good evidence that they were patching a buffer overflow problem and a shell metacharacter problem, which according to CD:SF-LOC should thus be separated. See http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-1999-0001 for an example in which a sparsely worded advisory is distinguished from other candidates by looking at the patches. Yes, the very first candidate ever assigned has been held up by content decisions and lack of information! ;-) - Steve