Re: CVE Entry Quality Working Group

["Landfield, Kent" <Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com>]

I agree. I will be happy to participate in the discussions as well.

 

Thank you, Gracias, Grazie,  谢谢, Merci!, Спасибо!, Bedankt, Danke!, ありがとう, धन्यवाद!

-- 

Kent Landfield

+1.817.637.8026

kent_landfield@mcafee.com

 

 

From: David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
Date: Monday, November 26, 2018 at 9:21 AM
To: "Coffin, Chris" <ccoffin@mitre.org>, CVE Editorial Board Discussion <cve-editorial-board-list@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CVE Entry Quality Working Group

 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

---

I think establishing this WG is a great idea. I'd be happy to participate.

Regards,
Dave

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Coffin, Chris" <ccoffin@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, November 26, 2018 9:32 AM -0500
To: CVE Editorial Board Discussion <cve-editorial-board-list@mitre.org>
Subject: CVE Entry Quality Working Group

Board Members,

 

The CVE team would like to judge your level of interest in establishing a CVE Entry Quality Working Group. The main focus of the group would be on improving the quality of CVE entry content. The output of the group would be best practices and guidelines on how to generate a CVE entry, and possibly propose changes to the CNA Rules. 

 

Example issues the group could cover include:

·         Should the CVSS vector be allowed in a CVE Entry description?

·         What is the best way to describe relationships between products (e.g. Product A bundles Product B)?

·         If the only public data for two different vulnerabilities would result in an identical description, what should be done?

 

Would the Board be interested in establishing the CVE Entry Quality Working Group, and are any Board members interested in stepping up to be the chair? Please respond by Friday Nov 30.

 

The CVE Team