Re: CVE/CNA coverage

[Kurt Seifried <kseifried@redhat.com>]

That is Oracle GlassFish Server which is different than the GlassFish Open Source one (as I understand it), e.g.:

https://blogs.oracle.com/GlassFishForBusiness/entry/difference_between_glassfish_open_source

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Williams, Ken <Ken.Williams@ca.com> wrote:

They’ve previously issued CVE identifiers for it.

 

Ex. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2017-2881727.html#AppendixFMW

 

Regards,

kw

 

From: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org [mailto:owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Seifried
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:08 PM
To: cve-editorial-board-list <cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org>
Subject: CVE/CNA coverage

 

So somebody asked for a CVE for Glassfish open server

 

https://glassfish.java.net/

 

Project sponsored by Oracle. Traditionally I've taken the "sponsored by" to mean quasi who "owns" it (e.g. a lot of Red Hat sponsored stuff that we do CVEs for because we're heavily involved). By that logic this would make this open source project fall into Oracle's space, so I guess my question is:

 

Does Oracle want this project to fall within their CNA/coverage, or do they consider "sponsored by" to be more arms length perhaps?

 

If Oracle doesn't want to be the CNA for it, then the DWF would be the next in line (being Open Source), If Oracle does want to be the CNA I'll redirect the request to them. 

 

And in general should we apply this logic? I think one thing that would help here is having the CNAs declare explicitly what they cover where possible so reporters don't have to guess/hunt. 

 

--

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

--

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