From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200511252257.jAPMvKG06179@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept
In-Reply-To: <43877750.5040504@hogranch.com>
To: John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:57:20 -0500 (EST)
CC: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Ferindo Middleton <fmiddleton@verizon.net>, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

John R Pierce wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If someone wants to create a separate web page to track fixes related to
> > CVE number, that is fine.  My guess is that most people reading the
> > release notes don't care about the CVE numbers themselves (just that
> > each release has all known security bugs fixed), and most bugs that are
> > fixed don't have CVE numbers at commit time.
> 
> I think its quite reasonable for the one line description of a postgres 
> bug to reference "CVE-2005-0247 multiple buffer overflows..." or 
> whatever, I guess it kind of depends on which came first...  if the CVE 
> security item came first, and was entered into the PGSQL bug tracker, 
> then this makes a LOT of sense.  if the CVE folks create their entry 
> AFTER the bug has been entered into PGSQL, it makes less sense.

We don't have a bug tracker, see the current FAQ.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073