Re: Multiple Security Misconfigurations and Customer Enumeration Exposure in Convercent Whistleblowing Platform (EQS Group)
嗯,用户让我总结这篇文章的内容,控制在一百个字以内,而且不需要用“文章内容总结”之类的开头。我先看看文章内容。 这封邮件是Yuffie写给Art的,感谢他分享的详细评估,并提到了CNA规则的相关部分。Art指出SaaS和独家托管服务的指导方针,Yuffie已经把评估转发给CNA考虑,并提到需要了解供应商的观点,特别是关于“独家托管服务”标签和之前限制的移除。 同时,供应商至今没有公开通报或用户沟通,也没有通过漏洞报告渠道发布信息。Art提到漏洞不再符合CVE跟踪资格,尽管它们真实存在、独立发现、负责任地披露,并被供应商承认。不过根据当前规则,SaaS软件可以分配CVE ID,之前的限制已经取消。 所以总结一下:邮件讨论了SaaS漏洞的CVE分配问题,指出供应商未公开通报,且CNA正在考虑相关规则变化。 </think> 邮件讨论了针对SaaS软件漏洞的CVE编号问题,指出尽管漏洞真实存在且已负责任披露,但目前不符合CVE跟踪资格。CNA正在考虑规则变化以允许此类漏洞获得CVE编号。 2026-1-27 04:32:59 Author: seclists.org(查看原文) 阅读量:8 收藏

fulldisclosure logo

Full Disclosure mailing list archives


From: Yuffie Kisaragi via Fulldisclosure <fulldisclosure () seclists org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 17:13:27 +0000

Dear Art,




Thank you for sharing your detailed evaluation and for pointing out the relevant
sections of the CNA Rules.




Your argument is well reasoned, particularly with respect to the current
guidance on SaaS and exclusively hosted services.




I have forwarded your evaluation to the CNA for further consideration. It will
also be important to understand the vendor’s perspective in light of the points
you raised, especially regarding the applicability of the
“exclusively-hosted-service” tag and the removal of prior restrictions.



We look forward to receive transparent feedback from the CNA and/or the vendor.


To date, the vendor has remained silent with regard to informing their users
about the reported issues. As far as we can determine, no public advisory or
user-facing communication has been issued via their vulnerability reporting
channel () or elsewhere.


Best regards,


Yuffie


On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 7:26 PM <> wrote:

Hi,

the vulnerabilities are no longer considered eligible for CVE tracking,
despite being real, independently discovered, responsibly disclosed, and
acknowledged by the vendor.
CVE IDs *can* be assigned for SaaS or similarly "cloud only" software. For a
period of time, there was a restriction that only the provider could make or
request such an assignment. But the current CVE rules remove this restriction:

4.2.3 CNAs MUST NOT consider the type of technology (e.g., cloud, on-premises,
artificial intelligence, machine learning) as the sole basis for determining
assignment.

It would have been acceptable (even preferred) to leave CVE-2025-34411 and
CVE-2025-34412 published and identify them as affecting an
"exclusively-hosted-service:"

5.1.11.1 (A CVE Record) MUST use the “exclusively-hosted-service” tag when all
known Products listed in the CVE Record exist only as fully hosted services.
If the Vulnerability affects both hosted services and on-premises Products,
then this tag MUST NOT be used.

Rules: https://www.cve.org/resourcessupport/allresources/cnarules

Regards,

- Art
_______________________________________________
Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
Web Archives & RSS: https://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/

Current thread:


文章来源: https://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2026/Jan/26
如有侵权请联系:admin#unsafe.sh