Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [BUGS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Ferindo Middleton" <fmiddleton(at)verizon(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept
Date: 2005-11-25 18:41:51
Message-ID: 200511251941.52468.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2005-11-25 18:46:45
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2005-11-25 18:39:43
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group