Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. What would be the biggest downside if we just stopped considering severity low or medium security bugs CVE worthy?

What would be the biggest downside if we just stopped considering severity low or medium security bugs CVE worthy?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
25 Posts 18 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • rrdot@infosec.exchangeR rrdot@infosec.exchange

    @kpcyrd @bagder this. If it doesn't matter that we have a common identifier to discuss security relevant bugs, then drop it. Otherwise keep em coming.

    rrdot@infosec.exchangeR This user is from outside of this forum
    rrdot@infosec.exchangeR This user is from outside of this forum
    rrdot@infosec.exchange
    wrote last edited by
    #21

    @kpcyrd @bagder another note is even if a security relevant bug has low or medium significance to the security model of curl, it might still have significance to the security model of systems that use curl. Obviously it's user be ware, but it's harder to make those decisions when you can't easily distinguish between security bugs and other bugs.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • bagder@mastodon.socialB bagder@mastodon.social

      What would be the biggest downside if we just stopped considering severity low or medium security bugs CVE worthy?

      jeroen@secluded.chJ This user is from outside of this forum
      jeroen@secluded.chJ This user is from outside of this forum
      jeroen@secluded.ch
      wrote last edited by
      #22

      @bagder Keep an ID, any ID.

      I see them as globally unique identifiers that are used in "did you fix this thing" context. As naming things is hard and we will run out of catchy names and logos...

      The severity indicates "fix now" or "fix tomorrow" or "next release". Thus the combo Id, severity, mitigatio & fix is important.

      Curl could use CURL-SEC-2026-05-ABC and it would be fine too.

      I just deployed a modprobe.d line for rds_tcp but no ID yet

      /cc @adulau (for soliciting his opinions 😉 )
      J

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • bagder@mastodon.socialB bagder@mastodon.social

        @kpcyrd countless projects basically do this already, I don't think the world would fall over. It would be fewer CVEs to care about.

        kpcyrd@chaos.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
        kpcyrd@chaos.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
        kpcyrd@chaos.social
        wrote last edited by
        #23

        @bagder Anybody can request a CVE, not just upstream. It's less about project policy, if a real, medium-severity vulnerability doesn't have a CVE assigned, that basically just means nobody was bothered enough to request one.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • bagder@mastodon.socialB bagder@mastodon.social

          What would be the biggest downside if we just stopped considering severity low or medium security bugs CVE worthy?

          airtower@woem.menA This user is from outside of this forum
          airtower@woem.menA This user is from outside of this forum
          airtower@woem.men
          wrote last edited by
          #24

          @bagder@mastodon.social I've seen security bugs considered lower severity because they affect only uncommon use cases, even if they're serious in those cases. Not assigning CVEs would make those harder to find.

          Though, to my great annoyance, I recently found CVEs considered low priority (severity or otherwise) often aren't properly annotated in NVD anyway, which makes them rather useless for automated checks. But that's a problem of the database.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • bagder@mastodon.socialB bagder@mastodon.social

            What would be the biggest downside if we just stopped considering severity low or medium security bugs CVE worthy?

            securitym0nkey@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
            securitym0nkey@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
            securitym0nkey@infosec.exchange
            wrote last edited by
            #25

            @bagder counter question what would be the downsides if we don't? Many organizations already have a hard time dealing with the vulnerability reports. They are drowning already in insignificant CVEs. And the situation isn't getting better. As a result important vulnerabilities aren't addressed as quickly as they could.

            But on the other hand it's already questionable what's considered low, medium and high. Official scoring often does not match what an organization would do for themselves.

            Whatever you do, for some people it will be negative. You have to balance the equation to be net positive. A really hard one to solve. Maybe even impossible to solve.

            1 Reply Last reply
            1
            0
            • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
            Reply
            • Reply as topic
            Log in to reply
            • Oldest to Newest
            • Newest to Oldest
            • Most Votes


            • Login

            • Login or register to search.
            • First post
              Last post
            0
            • Categories
            • Recent
            • Tags
            • Popular
            • World
            • Users
            • Groups