Re: [Full-disclosure] Open Letter on the Interpretation of "Vulnerability Statistics"

[Matt Zimmerman <mdz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:59:48PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Georgi Guninski:
> 
> > so you approve gaining pseudo credibility by practicing mouse copy/paste?
> >
> > then this pseudo credibility leads to corporate serving/licking like:
> > "responsible disclosure rfc" - search for it.
> >
> > not than coley is consistent at all (besides lacking completeness):
> > http://www.cve.mitre.org/board/archives/2002-02/msg00026.html
> > -------------------
> > - The Board has agreed that CNAs should not reserve candidates for
> >   people who do not practice responsible disclosure (candidates would
> >   be assigned *after* publication).  I hope that this document, or a
> >   later version, will become part of the "definition" of responsible
> >   disclosure.
> > -------------------
> 
> Yes, this puzzles me too, but on the other hand, Debian became a CNA,
> and Debian's official policy is geared away from "responsible
> disclosure" -- all bug reports are supposed to be public.

Debian isn't a CNA; as far as I know, it isn't possible for organizations to
become CNAs.  Some of the people in security-related roles in Debian are
also (individually) CNAs.

Additionally, Debian has traditionally participated in coordinated
disclosure, before CVE existed.

-- 
 - mdz
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/