[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
many old IDs to reject
- To: CVE <cve@mitre.org>
- Subject: many old IDs to reject
- From: jericho <jericho@attrition.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 01:31:24 -0500
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 129.83.29.3) smtp.mailfrom=LISTS.MITRE.ORG; mitre.mail.onmicrosoft.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;mitre.mail.onmicrosoft.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=attrition.org;
- Cc: CVE Editorial Board <cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org>
- Delivery-date: Mon May 15 07:56:10 2017
- Importance: high
- List-help: <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTS.MITRE.ORG?body=INFO%20CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST>
- List-owner: <mailto:CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST-request@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
- List-subscribe: <mailto:CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST-subscribe-request@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CVE-EDITORIAL-BOARD-LIST-unsubscribe-request@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
- Sender: <owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: 6cdb8bfc89744bd8bfee511e3e65aa05
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:2
- User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MITRE,I am adding the board for obvious reasons related to time-tables and transparency. I don't expect this to be prioritized ahead of new IDs, but this should be on your "to-do" list. Once resolved, you can simply respond to this email with the disposition!
You have rejected some old 1999 IDs that do not meet criteria for inclusion. e.g. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0614
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: this candidate is solely about a configuration that does not directly introduce security vulnerabilities, so it is more appropriate to cover under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE). Notes: the former description is: "The FTP service is running." Similar, but still active and should be REJECTed: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0613 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0624 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0629 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0632 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0636 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0637 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0638 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0639 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0640 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0641 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0653 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0548 Slightly different but essentially the same argument: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0654 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0657 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0662 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0501 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0515 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0523 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0525 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0529 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0530 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0533 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0539 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0555 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0556 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0561 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0570 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0576 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0577 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0578 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0579 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0582 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0583 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0585 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0586 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0594 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0596 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0597 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0454 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0240 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0559 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0550 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0520Would be valid if it had actional information (e.g. vendor, product, and/or version):
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0220 Missing provenance (Christey would be rolling in his grave): http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0222 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0232 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0285Site-specific, likely the oldest of its kind which is interesting given the recent discussion about including site-specific vulns:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0750Like the above, but particularly amusing given where Web browsers are these days =):
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0537 .b
- Prev by Date: Re: Current standards/criteria for 'Undefined Behavior'
- Next by Date: RE: On the topic of MITRE/Board transparency
- Previous by thread: RE: CVE Announce - May 11, 2017 (opt-in newsletter from the CVE website)
- Next by thread: Agenda for CVE Board Meeting May 24
- Index(es):
