Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:34:46 +0000
From: "Seaman, Chad" <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: CVE-2022-21449 and version reporting

Exactly this.

It’s not that they didn’t/can’t verify, it’s already verified, they’re claiming those versions no longer being officially supported means they can seemingly omit them from CVE reporting.

Which is dangerous, misleading, and nonsensical.


On Apr 28, 2022, at 5:36 PM, Sven Schwedas <> wrote:

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?

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/octet-stream" (677 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.