[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: cve-assign@...re.org
To: kseifried@...hat.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: 2 CVE's to be rejected
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> The following two CVEs were used internally, one for an issue that
> turns out not to be an issue (looong story) and one for an issue with
> the same root cause as another (so duplicate). We could in theory
> recycle them but I feel it safer to not reuse them in case they leak
> out and cause confusion.
>
> Please REJECT CVE-2013-1870
> Please REJECT CVE-2013-4398
Our current process for rejecting as a duplicate requires that the
REJECT description specify the duplicated CVE ID. Would you be able to
say which one (1870 or 4398) had the duplicate/same-root-cause
situation, and the correct CVE ID for the vulnerability with that root
cause?
We would want this information even if the correct CVE ID still refers
to an embargoed issue.
- --
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSVjw0AAoJEKllVAevmvmsm7wH/0Rgv/rfNE3KlAYUGd9XKo0k
MmE2+H4v+93Sw7wSbUnSXDATUP80DSgex8O4o/UT8U1nfXJXUMYRsFvkZQrmPevo
wBxDj2v6laSIT2NMuLGz/noBMoZeluCSLlr3GL0AuntBH3omjxKkY3MunW7WkWY2
8Gut8AfrfGFepz83BdMSBx8UsMP7sOHGzAnmm+7hwpxTx/yWa/bsuNQqYSaTXQwe
4jOoX1yvPxnqhacevn2nWZ7ewvlYERAkFif0sWHxRhbzIhv626ahb3dY0Gf6L6bF
/UqEXMWSC2O2nkqBdwvpGbZ797JSmGMniaRQ2+BqtnjjlYuKOkPj+v+dp2+0+bw=
=nxfR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
