I don’t know anything about your procedures, but I don’t see why we wouldn’t…
I would also contact NIST (or whoever is in charge of the CVE database; I can’t remember by heart who it is) to let them know this, so they update the CVE’s vulnerable configurations. I’ll try to do that next week, but I will probably first have to find out which exact versions of openjpeg2 have been affected (which will probably be quite difficult for me) Nice week-end Cyrille > Le 13 avr. 2024 à 00:22, Ola Lundqvist <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hi Cyrille > >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 16:32, Cyrille Bollu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Ola, >> >> Thank you for your help. >> >> So, IIUC: >> >> 1. CVE-2019-12214 shouldn't be assigned to freeimage in Debian Buster; >> 2. CVE-2019-12214 might be assigned to source package openjpeg2 or >> openjpeg (the later doesn't seem to be available in Buster though) > > Yes, potentially so. At least if I understand the email from Santiago > correctly. > > freeimage build depends on libopenjp2-7-dev which is built from > openjpeg2 so in buster it is openjpeg2 where it should belong. > > But I do not know whether we typically re-assign things like this or > not so I do not want to give advice for this. Better if someone else > who knows the practice answers this. > > // Ola > > -- > --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- > | [email protected] [email protected] | > | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > ---------------------------------------------------------------
