|
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- To: "Landfield, Kent B" <kent.b.landfield@intel.com>
- Subject: Re: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@redhat.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:37:43 -0600
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 129.83.29.2) smtp.mailfrom=LISTS.MITRE.ORG; mitre.mail.onmicrosoft.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;mitre.mail.onmicrosoft.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=redhat.com;mitre.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
- Cc: "Millar, Thomas" <Thomas.Millar@hq.dhs.gov>, cve-editorial-board-list <cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org>
- Delivery-date: Thu Aug 11 07:49:01 2016
- In-reply-to: <E908464E-F09A-487D-857B-AEA0CB4FDF89@intel.com>
- List-help: <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTS.MITRE.ORG?body=INFO%20CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST>
- List-owner: <mailto:CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST-request@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
- List-subscribe: <mailto:CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST-subscribe-request@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST-unsubscribe-request@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
- References: <CANO=Ty0UPBCj3ngGdFB9TNi7UCReViyrrEukBtSyKp00G23ZSw@mail.gmail.com> <7748E4BAEC3B964387F3535351DCBA1FB680E0CC@D2ASEPREA010> <E908464E-F09A-487D-857B-AEA0CB4FDF89@intel.com>
- Sender: <owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: 43da9c421be74aed97248473db21fd15
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:2
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Landfield, Kent B <kent.b.landfield@intel.com> wrote:
Can we talk about this before we anoint someone?
Personally I do not believe we should be adding board members based on news articles. Let's see how it goes first and then if it makes sense, do it.
What would be the international repercussions by doing this? We want CVE as a global vulnerability identification means, not just a US one.
At this point we have not had the preliminary discussions to tie ourselves to aa org such as this. Let's have those first...
My personal take: the US DoD is a HUGE consumer of CVE and related standards (witness NVD, SCAP, STIG, etc.). I'd at least like to get someone on USCYBERCOMs end as a liaison/communications channel (something not always easy to do with the DoD).
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@redhat.com
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@redhat.com
- References:
- Regarding USCYBERCOM
- From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@redhat.com>
- RE: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- From: "Millar, Thomas" <Thomas.Millar@hq.dhs.gov>
- Re: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- From: "Landfield, Kent B" <kent.b.landfield@intel.com>
- Regarding USCYBERCOM
- Prev by Date: Re: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- Next by Date: RE: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- Previous by thread: Re: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- Next by thread: RE: Regarding USCYBERCOM
- Index(es):