undefined

points

[-]

That's nonsense. The goal is and always has been to undermine the CVE system because Greg does not believe in the system. The kernel is the only project that marks CVEs to fixes, it's the only project that considers every bug to be a "Security" bug, and it has a multi-decades long history of telling the security world to fuck off - all consistent with what I've said.

No one else has the process that the kernel has, despite plenty of people having software that's deployed in very similar ways.

There's zero question - this is ideologically motivated, not a genuine good-faith attempt to leverage the system.

by inigyou8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Or maybe it's ideologically motivated that other groups only identify certain bugs as security bugs?

by insanitybit7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Make a case then. My case is that Greg has, for decades, said that he hates the CVE system and rejected it and that the kernel objectively labels CVEs based on fixes (not the standard at all, CVEs are for vulns), etc. I can point to so many objective pieces of evidence to support my claim.

You seem to have a vague, leading question. If you want to say something about "other groups" or ideologies, go ahead.

by inigyou4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Malicious compliance is compliance.

by insanitybit4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't know what you're trying to say at all. But no, the kernel is objectively not compliant because they label fixes with CVEs and not vulnerabilities. But even if they were compliant... what would that have to do with anything? Feels like a non sequitur.

It's very hard to figure out what point you're trying to make.

by inigyou3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Every bugfix implies a bug.

by insanitybit18 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm going to graciously give you one last chance to actually say something of substance before I stop responding entirely.

by __s5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|