bugtraq - Re: Vendor guidelines regarding security contacts

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.51.0701121729380.3932@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:34:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: Ben Bucksch <news@...ksch.org>
Cc: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...re.org>, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Vendor guidelines regarding security contacts

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Ben Bucksch wrote:

> Steven M. Christey wrote:
> > The US Department of Homeland Security's "Vulnerability Disclosure
> > Framework" document here:
> >
> >   http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/vdwgreport.pdf
> >
>
> *cough*
>
> Full Disclosure Policy (RFPolicy) v2.0
> http://www.wiretrip.net/rfp/policy.html

I specifically omitted this as well as the IETF proposal from me and Chris
Wysopal, because a vendor is more likely to respond to something from the
Dept. of Homeland Security or big-name vendors, than a document written by
a pseudonymous individual who might be well-known within the industry, but
not outside of it.  Like it or not, the use of nyms can breed mistrust or
credibility questions.  There is no doubt that RFP's policy was
influential and still relevant today; my omission was strategic in nature.

- Steve