| 1 |
On 09.01.2014 01:08, Chris Reffett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/07/2014 08:42 PM, Tobias Heinlein wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08.01.2014 02:40, Tobias Heinlein wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Our new approach works more like a whitelist; |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> "more like a blacklist", that is. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I kind of would like the workaround field to remain (but perhaps be |
| 10 |
> optional) since I have seen a few vulns that actually did have |
| 11 |
> functional workarounds. Not absolutely necessary. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Does it need to have its own field, can't it be part of the (temporary) |
| 15 |
resolution? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Chris Reffett |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Alex Legler <a3li@g.o> |
| 22 |
Gentoo Security/Ruby/Infrastructure |
Archives