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

Clarify the involvements section (1) #220

Closed
tschmidtb51 opened this issue Apr 13, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #255
Closed

Clarify the involvements section (1) #220

tschmidtb51 opened this issue Apr 13, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #255

Comments

@tschmidtb51
Copy link
Contributor

During the review of #205 there were some comments regarding the definitions and explanations use in the involvements property:


@tolim stated in #205 (comment):

It is unclear to me how this value should be used. I would assume that disputed in the context of the party means, that the named party and its affiliation to the vulnerability is disputed (and not the vulnerability report in its entirety).
If there is no security implication, the vulnerability CVSS score would indicate this by a value of 0.
Is there any case, where the value disputed would be used? At least from a vendor perspective, this value will never be useful as disputed or non-responding parties will not be mentioned in the advisory.


@sthagen replied in #205 (comment):

Defining categories in deeply nested structures sometimes makes us miss the forrest for the trees - I will read CVRF v1.2 again to see how we did there. Thanks for bringing this scope / use question up @tolim


This issue is used to track the progress and provide a place for discussions.

@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 changed the title Clarify the involvements section Clarify the involvements section (1) Apr 13, 2021
@tschmidtb51
Copy link
Contributor Author

tschmidtb51 commented Apr 26, 2021

@tolim: What about this use case:

A security researcher (let's call him Bob) applies for a CVE and gets it granted by a CERT (let's call that CERT-XY). The vendor (say FooBar) states he is not affected. This brings us to the situation where:

  • Bob could issue an advisory and use (state, party)-tuples: { (disputed, vendor), (completed, coordinator)
  • CERT-XY could issue an advisory and use (state, party)-tuples: { (disputed, vendor), (completed, coordinator)
  • FooBar could issue an "informational" advisory and use state disputed for the party vendor.

I agree that the latter one is probably unlikely.

Having written that example I think I see the problem too. The definition always refer to the vendor instead of referring to the party.

tschmidtb51 added a commit to tschmidtb51/csaf that referenced this issue May 22, 2021
- addresses part of oasis-tcs#220 and oasis-tcs#221
- add date into involvement section
tschmidtb51 added a commit to tschmidtb51/csaf that referenced this issue May 22, 2021
- addresses part of oasis-tcs#220 and oasis-tcs#221
- rephrase descriptions to be more explicit
- replace type with category
tschmidtb51 added a commit to tschmidtb51/csaf that referenced this issue May 22, 2021
- addresses part of oasis-tcs#220 and oasis-tcs#221
- address questions regarding unclear use of vendor
tschmidtb51 added a commit to tschmidtb51/csaf that referenced this issue May 22, 2021
- addresses part of oasis-tcs#220, oasis-tcs#221 and oasis-tcs#195
- add uniqueItems for list of involvements
- add test "Multiple Definition in Involvements"
tschmidtb51 added a commit to tschmidtb51/csaf that referenced this issue May 22, 2021
- addresses part of oasis-tcs#220, oasis-tcs#221 and oasis-tcs#195
- add test "Missing Date in Involvements"
@tolim
Copy link
Contributor

tolim commented May 26, 2021

After reviewing the pull request, I agree to keep disputed in the spec. It definitely is useful for CERTs providing status reports on different vendors within one document.

@tschmidtb51
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merged into the oasis-tcs/csaf:master through #265.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants