Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Open Letter on the Interpretation of "Vulnerability Statistics"
From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz () debian org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:17:02 -0800

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:59:48PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Georgi Guninski:

so you approve gaining pseudo credibility by practicing mouse copy/paste?

then this pseudo credibility leads to corporate serving/licking like:
"responsible disclosure rfc" - search for it.

not than coley is consistent at all (besides lacking completeness):
- The Board has agreed that CNAs should not reserve candidates for
  people who do not practice responsible disclosure (candidates would
  be assigned *after* publication).  I hope that this document, or a
  later version, will become part of the "definition" of responsible

Yes, this puzzles me too, but on the other hand, Debian became a CNA,
and Debian's official policy is geared away from "responsible
disclosure" -- all bug reports are supposed to be public.

Debian isn't a CNA; as far as I know, it isn't possible for organizations to
become CNAs.  Some of the people in security-related roles in Debian are
also (individually) CNAs.

Additionally, Debian has traditionally participated in coordinated
disclosure, before CVE existed.

 - mdz
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]