|
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@linus.mitre.org>, cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
- Subject: Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- From: Pascal Meunier <pmeunier@cerias.purdue.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:34:21 -0500
- Delivery-Date: Wed Feb 28 06:40:20 2001
- In-Reply-To: <200102280436.XAA06277@linus.mitre.org>
- References: <200102280436.XAA06277@linus.mitre.org>
Yes, I think we should keep CAN-2001-0145 to become the CVE number, and have CAN-2000-0756 and CAN(CVE)-2001-0145 doubly linked with an explicit notice "These are the same vulnerabilities." I think that this is an acceptable price to pay for a reduced lag time, if it happens only a few times per year. Cheers, Pascal At 11:36 PM -0500 2/27/01, Steven M. Christey wrote: ... >The guidelines suggest that CAN-2001-0145 would be promoted instead of >CAN-2000-0756. So, is that reasonable? > >- Steve
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- From: "Baker,David W." <bakerd@mitre.org>
- Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- References:
- [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@linus.mitre.org>
- [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- Prev by Date: [Meeting] Hotel Reminder
- Next by Date: Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- Prev by thread: [Meeting] Hotel Reminder
- Next by thread: Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
- Index(es):