[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130321142147.GA4602@kludge.henri.nerv.fi>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:21:47 +0200
From: Henri Salo <henri@...v.fi>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Ruby CVEs
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:05:13PM +0000, Christey, Steven M. wrote:
> I agree with Alexander. The CVE assignment process is never intended to introduce unnecessary delays to the publication of vulnerability information. Merely noting whether CVEs have already been requested should reduce most of the risk of duplicates without forcing people to delay publication.
>
> - Steve
There hasn't been any delays in publication of this security vulnerability.
Advisory was made in different mailing list without CVE. This is the reason I
asked him to request CVE identifier and pointed to oss-security mailing list.
CVE got assigned. List knows about the issue. End of story. Next problem,
please.
---
Henri Salo
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
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.
