Hi, El 15/04/24 a las 21:47, Ola Lundqvist escribió: > Hi Santiago > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 21:10, Santiago Ruano Rincón > <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Ola, > > > > As being discussed with Salvatore, there is not enough evidence to > > conclude there is not any issue present on the freeimage side. > > Do I understand correctly that the evidence that Cyrille provided is not > enough?
>From the different inputs available, *I* would add this issue as affecting openjpeg2 for being able to track it there too. And I would wait for the response by MITRE. I have not confirmed Salvatore or the Securiy Team shares that opinion, though. I don't have at hand anything that clearly tells me the issue is no longer present after openjpeg2 2.1.0-1. > > We need > > to be on the safe side, like *always*, and with marking freeimage as > > <not-affected> we would stop tracking the issue. > > To stay on the safe side, we need to keep tracking the issue. > > If we do not trust that analysis from Cyrille, I agree with you. It is not a question of trust. It is a problem of lack of strong evidence that the issue is no longer there in freeimage or openjepg2. We cannot rely only on CVE description to track the issues. > > Hugo mentioned this refactoring commit that *could* have fixed the issue: > > https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/commit/c887df12a38ff1a2721d0c8a93b74fe1d02701a2 > > Ref: > > https://sourceforge.net/p/freeimage/discussion/36111/thread/e06734bed5/#b887/4639 > > But without any reproducer, it is hard to conclude the issue was fixed. > > Yes without a reproducer we cannot tell with absolute certainty, > unless we create a new reproducer. And marking a package as <not-affected> by an issue requires to have absolute certainty. > > One possibility would be to mark it as <ignored>, but not as > > <not-affected>. > > That is a possibility, yes. Is this what you propose then? If you propose to create a new reproducer; so I would not mark it as <ignored> :-) > > <postponed> wouldn't make sense since the reported > > hasn't shared any more information in five years. > > That was new to me. I thought we did not <ignore> issues purely > because we have not more info. > But I agree with you that ignoring really old things for which we have > no more info makes sense. > I was not aware that it was an ok thing to do. The above was a suggestion made by Salvatore and I cannot talk for the security team. This is just one possible action. My understanding, for this kind of cases, is marking it as <ignored> where there is **really** nothing else we can do, while still tracking the issue. But if you are able to reproduce the issue, or provide more information, leaving it as open (until we can conclude something different) makes equally sense. HTH, -- Santiago
