[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVEs for malicious software in PYPI

Question to clarify:

Software package A.

Researcher finds Software package A has a backdoor ("root"/"password") that was in dev but slipped through to a production version.

If the above were a programming error they would get a CVE right?

If they are deliberately introduced by the programmer, still gets a CVE right?

But if a bad guy hijacks the package and inserts the above code, that doesn't get a CVE?

To me a security vulnerability worthy of a CVE in software is  a security vulnerability worthy of a CVE in software, I don't care about intent (well in so much as I'd like to avoid shipping code from malicious upstreams, or projects that get compromised/etc.). 

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Landfield, Kent <Kent_Landfield@mcafee.com> wrote:

Kent Landfield

On 9/20/17, 9:57 AM, "owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org on behalf of Pascal Meunier" <owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org on behalf of pmeunier@cerias.purdue.edu> wrote:

    1) Identifying vulnerabilities in malicious code would be in the scope
    of the CVE but it has doubtful utility.  Identifying malicious code is
    out of scope

    2) Typo squatting whether in domain names or package names is not a
    software vulnerability, it's a namespace management issue and an attackvector, out of scope of the CVE.


    On Fri, 2017-09-15 at 18:53 -0600, Kurt Seifried wrote:
    > http://www.nbu.gov.sk/skcsirt-sa-20170909-pypi/index.html
    > TL;DR: Someone may PYPI packages that were malicious, and typo/close
    > names
    > of legit things (e.g. acquisition / acqusition). I'd like to assign
    > CVEs to
    > them so they are identified, so two thoughts:
    > 1) people uploaded code (meant to be malicious or not) to PYPI that
    > has
    > flaws, so CVE right
    > 2) the typo squatting aspect, should this get a CVE? There is obvious
    > intent of shenanigans, but... how do we count it?

Kurt Seifried

Page Last Updated or Reviewed: September 21, 2017