Re: Buffer overflow in /bin/su from UNIX v4

[Peter Gutmann <pgut001 () cs auckland ac nz>]

Solar Designer <solar () openwall com> writes:

> I guess because (ir)relevance isn't among criteria for (not) assigning a CVE,
> and because there may be value in having a non-ambiguous way to refer to
> historical vulnerabilities for illustration of how the current ones fit in
> historical context.

... and because it was a bit of fun.  Not everything has to be serious, it was
nice to see the CISA folks have a sense of humour :-).

> The 2025 in this CVE is almost certainly wrong, but I understand that no one
> had the resources to figure out the year it was first discovered.

They were unable to assign a 1973 CVE so used 2025, the year it was
(re-)discovered, instead.

Peter.