Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:34:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <>
To: Josh Bressers <>
Subject: Re: CVE Request: mailman

In this case, all else being equal, lowest ID wins.

We will never be perfect due to the lack of sufficient details (or, way 
too many details), but where possible I prefer to follow the consistency 
rules when we can, especially when they're pretty clear-cut like this.

It happens :-)

In this case, the abstraction issue was discovered quickly, so I'm OK with 
fixing the abstraction after the fact.

Let's stick with CVE-2010-3089, and I'll flag CVE-2010-3090 for rejection.

- Steve

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Josh Bressers wrote:

> ----- "Steven M. Christey" <> wrote:
>> Josh,
>> Was there a particular reason to split these into separate CVEs?  A quick
>> glance suggests they affect the same version, and since they're the same
>> type, would normally argue for a merge.
> I have no idea why I did that now that I look at the bugs. I'm sorry.
> I'll let you pick which ID to use (do you have a policy for this? lowest
> ID?)
> Thanks.
> --
>    JB

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.