[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists