Re: Vendor-sec hosting and future of closed lists
[Posted March 9, 2011 by jake]
| From: |
| Mark J Cox <mjc-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA-AT-public.gmane.org> |
| To: |
| oss-security-ZwoEplunGu1jrUoiu81ncdBPR1lH4CV8-AT-public.gmane.org |
| Subject: |
| Re: Vendor-sec hosting and future of closed lists |
| Date: |
| Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:08:03 +0000 (GMT) |
| Message-ID: |
| <1103040800390.25284@mjc.redhat.com> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
> This certainly underscores that very few flaws need vendor-sec
> coordination, but I would suspect that out of those roughly 725 flaws,
> many of the really critical ones came through vendor-sec.
Actually, not so much. Of the flaws we rated impact critical or with a
CVSS of 'high', only 4 were from that 29 from vendor-sec.
> I'm also curious what "issues already public but found out about it on
> vendor-sec" means?
It's where the date the issue was public is the same date it was reported
to vendor-sec. This can be because it was brought to the wrong list, the
embargo was a day or less, or less often vendors wanted to discuss
something about it confidentially (a way to exploit it, etc)
Mark
(
Log in to post comments)