Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs)

                							

                <!--X-Body-Begin-->
<!--X-User-Header-->

oss-sec
mailing list archives
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
<!--X-TopPNI-->

By Date

By Thread

</form>

<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-->
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs)

<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->

From: Ihor Radchenko &lt;yantar92 () posteo net&gt;

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:04:06 +0000

<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->

<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
Sean Whitton &lt;spwhitton () spwhitton name&gt; writes:

Hmm, thank you, but let me ask a follow-up question: do you agree with
me that there is only one security flaw covered by these two CVEs, and
CVE-2024-30203 is the superfluous one?

Yes, CVE-2024-30203 title is superfluous.
And CVE-2024-30204 title is not accurate - it only applies to
certain attachments with specific (text/x-org) mime type.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at &lt;https://orgmode.org/&gt;.
Support Org development at &lt;https://liberapay.com/org-mode&gt;,
or support my work at &lt;https://liberapay.com/yantar92&gt;

<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->

<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->

By Date

By Thread

Current thread:

Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs) Sean Whitton (Apr 08)

Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs) Eli Zaretskii (Apr 08)

Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs) Max Nikulin (Apr 08)

Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs) Ihor Radchenko (Apr 08)

Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs) Sean Whitton (Apr 10)

Re: Is CVE-2024-30203 bogus? (Emacs) Ihor Radchenko (Apr 10)

<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->