Re: minor feature request: Secure defaults during

From: Pascal Meunier <pmeunier(at)cerias(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: minor feature request: Secure defaults during
Date: 2006-09-18 18:49:23
Message-ID: C1346273.15326%pmeunier@cerias.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/18/06 2:00 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Pascal Meunier <pmeunier(at)cerias(dot)net> writes:
>> I asked MITRE to provide a CCE number for this issue (the CCE is a new
>> effort like the CVE, but for configuration issues instead of
>> vulnerabilities). I'll let you know if it happens.
>
> Trying to force us to change things by getting Mitre involved is a
> really really good way to get pushback. I think you just killed any
> chance of getting this idea adopted.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

Please forgive my chronic lack of tact, which is evident in my previous
email; it is one of my flaws. I've been involved in the CVE for a long
time, where the original idea was to give a number to every issue under
discussion (including ones that aren't confirmed -- those were candidates),
so getting a CCE number seemed a normal process to me. I also read your
previous email as a likely dismissal, and did not want you to be surprised
by seeing a CCE assigned to it. I'm sorry it offended you so much,
regardless of the outcome. Moreover, I'd rather be a carpet to the
PostgreSQL developers than be cited as the cause for a security improvement
not being made, due to having antagonized so much the developers. Please,
consider the issue and not the silly messenger.

Sincerely,
Pascal Meunier

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2006-09-18 18:51:45 Re: Mid cycle release?
Previous Message Gevik Babakhani 2006-09-18 18:46:57 Re: An Idea for OID conflicts