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.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: Open Letter on the Interpretation of "Vulnerability Statistics" Florian Weimer (Jan 07)
RE: location Randall M (Jan 07)
Re: location ad () heapoverflow com (Jan 07)
Re: Open Letter on the Interpretation of "Vulnerability Statistics" Steven M. Christey (Jan 07)
- Re: Open Letter on the Interpretation of "Vulnerability Statistics", (continued)