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

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept
Date: 2005-11-25 21:10:22
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E8A0@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > > > We really should write the CVE numbers into the commit messages
> > > > and the release notes.
> > >
> > > I think that would be good.
> >
> > That requires the CVE number to be available at the time of commit.
> > Not sure if it'll always be. But if it is, it's certainly a
> good idea
> > to put it in.
>
> I think that depends on who discovers it. CVEs are assigned
> even if it's not clear that the vulnerability is exploitable.
> In anycase, some distributors (like Debian) already track
> CVEs on your behalf. In general they refer to the CVE when
> releasing fixes.

Right. This is exactly why it's good to have a list of our own, so ppl
can cross reference.

> In any case, PostgreSQL already seems to have had 29 CVEs logged:
>
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=postgresql

Not quite that many. Several of those are not for postgresql at all, but
for third party products *using* postgresql.

//Magnus

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-11-25 22:24:13 Re: SHOW ALL output too wide
Previous Message John R Pierce 2005-11-25 20:42:56 Re: [HACKERS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to