Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Point 2: CVE is pretty much the industry standard for naming
> vulnerabilities. This is what people *use*. There's no reason *not*
> to provide it as a cross reference. But sure, we shouldn't list only
> the ones that have CVE numbers - if there are any that doesn't, they
> should be listed as well.
Actually, if there are any that don't have a CVE number, then we should
simply ask for one to be assigned.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2005-11-25 18:46:45|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2005-11-25 18:39:43|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?|