full-disclosure - Re: Clarification on Xitami DoS

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

Message-ID: <200208060053.UAA22491@linus.mitre.org>
From: coley at linus.mitre.org (Steven M. Christey)
Subject: Re: Clarification on Xitami DoS

I said:

> This thread is a good demonstration for why vendors need to be
> responsive to incoming vulnerability reports... Greater overall
> responsiveness by vendors is covered heavily by section 3 of the
> Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process draft

Georgi Guninski said:

>In my opinion bundling bad stuff and good stuff in one document does
>not make the whole document good.

I hope that we can restructure the next version of the document so
that recommendations for vendor responsiveness are somewhat separate
from the proposed disclosure process.  That way, vulnerability
researchers/notifiers could point to particular parts of the
disclosure document to give them some "backup," even if they do not
agree with other parts of the document.

- Steve