Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?

• To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@linus.mitre.org>, cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
• Subject: Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
• From: Pascal Meunier <pmeunier@cerias.purdue.edu>
• Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:34:21 -0500
• Delivery-Date: Wed Feb 28 06:40:20 2001
• In-Reply-To: <200102280436.XAA06277@linus.mitre.org>
• References: <200102280436.XAA06277@linus.mitre.org>

Yes, I think we should keep CAN-2001-0145 to become the CVE number, and have CAN-2000-0756 and CAN(CVE)-2001-0145 doubly linked with an explicit notice "These are the same vulnerabilities."

I think that this is an acceptable price to pay for a reduced lag time, if it happens only a few times per year. 

Cheers,
Pascal

At 11:36 PM -0500 2/27/01, Steven M. Christey wrote:
...
>The guidelines suggest that CAN-2001-0145 would be promoted instead of
>CAN-2000-0756.  So, is that reasonable?
>
>- Steve

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
    • From: "Baker,David W." <bakerd@mitre.org>

• References:
  • [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
    • From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@linus.mitre.org>

• Prev by Date: [Meeting] Hotel Reminder
• Next by Date: Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
• Prev by thread: [Meeting] Hotel Reminder
• Next by thread: Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread