Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a guide for creating CVE entries #86

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

timlegge
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.


1. Access [Mitre CVE Form](https://cveform.mitre.org/)
1. Select a request type: **_Report Vulnerability/Request CVE ID_**
1. Enter your e-mail address: **[email protected]_**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Authors/reporters should prob use their own email address here and not our list

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

True


# Creating a CVE Request

This is an example of how to create a CVE with an older vulnerability from Mojolicious that did not have one previously assigned.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we use a general example like Foobar or something like that, rather than Mojolicious?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can change it it an example but likely should be generic

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stigtsp the thing I like about using this example is that it exists and you can review the source info

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stigtsp I looked at it but the example is likely best. The point was to give an example that someone could follow

Copy link
Contributor

@Tux Tux Dec 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we use a general example like Foobar or something like that, rather than Mojolicious?

Then please use Foo::Bar or Foo-Bar to make the distinction clear in what to use

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I use Foo-Bar in the security policy guide.


For some CPAN modules this is fairly simple.
For others you may need to do some additional research.
For _CPANSA-Mojolicious-2018-01_ CPAN::Audit lists the vulnerability as **Mojolicious** in the identifier but the description correctly identifies **_Mojo::UserAgent::CookieJar_**.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd say that in this example Mojolicious is the distribution name, and the product that contains the vuln.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but in the case of a module like this it is specific to a certain part so it may be a case of a vulnerabilit that you are not encountering if you are not using Mojo::UserAgent::CookieJar


This is an example of how to create a CVE with an older vulnerability from Mojolicious that did not have one previously assigned.

* CPANSA-Mojolicious-2018-01
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This might muddy the waters a bit, I don't think CPANSA identifiers are relevant for CVEs (except as URL references, but there are currently no way of linking to CPANSA resources)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

True but it is the specific issue in this example

docs/cve-creation-guide.md Show resolved Hide resolved
You can provide additional information that you may have if it is relevant.

Some possible additional information:
1. If the vulnerability is embargoed (not publicly acknowledged or under a non disclosure of some sort) mention it here
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, maybe worth mentioning that a vuln that has been discussed in public is by default public and not embargoed.

So References should not be given for anything embargoed

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixing

@sjn
Copy link
Contributor

sjn commented Dec 12, 2024

Can we have this branch updated and see what's left before merging? :-)

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ If you care and would like to make a contribution or join, you are welcome to do
* [Pre-Release Disclosure Agreement](docs/pre-release-disclosure.md)
* [Group charter](docs/charter.md) ⚠️ DRAFT
* Standards and regulations [reading list](docs/readinglist.md) ⚠️ DRAFT
* [CVE Creation Guide](docs/cve-creation-guide.md)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have moved the files around since this was made; Better update the link to the new location? (docs/guides/cve-creation-guide.md)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Merging the main branch into this one should work with a little tweaking.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants