full-disclosure - Open Letter on the Interpretation of "Vulnerability Statistics"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat Jan  7 16:00:00 2006
From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer)
Subject: Open Letter on the Interpretation of
	"Vulnerability Statistics"

* 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):
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/board/archives/2002-02/msg00026.html
> -------------------
> - 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
>   disclosure.
> -------------------

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.