[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:40:23 +0200
From: Sven Schwedas <sven.schwedas@....at>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2022-21449 and version reporting
On 28.04.22 22:10, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 02:12:04PM +0000, Seaman, Chad wrote:
>> In what universe exactly are versions omitted from vulnerability
>> reporting because a vendor “no longer supports that version”… this
>> non-supported version is still vulnerable?
>
> A large part of software maintenance is managing technical debt --
> and being able to walk away from no-longer-supported products is an
> important part of that.
>
> Would you expect Microsoft to evaluate Windows 3.11, Windows 95,
> Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0. Windows XP,
> etc for every single vulnerability discovered in newest products?
You and Jeremy arguing in bad faith here, OP didn't ask about anything
like that.
The problem at hand is, someone *already did all that work*, and Oracle
is *actively intervening* to have it dropped from CVE reports.
So the question is: Why is vulnerability information that already exists
being censored?
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (666 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.
