再保险:CVE-10K问题

作为一个消费者的信息和工具供应商,我们没有问题与红帽的改变。可以改变并影响我们产品代码删除,毕业后端处理残疾人和数据更新。这些都不是问题,因为我们有足够的时间来计划的过渡。——Kent Landfield导演,McAfee安全研究,Inc .) + 1 972.963.7096直接+ 1 817.637.8026移动kent_landfield@mcafee.com www.mcafee.com - - - - - - - - - - -从原始信息:owner-cve-editorial-board-list@LISTS.MITRE。ORG (mailto: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@LISTS.MITRE.ORG)代表Steven m . Christey发送:周二,1月16日2007年十一17点到:Mark J考克斯Cc: Steven m . Christey;cve-editorial-board-list@LISTS.MITRE.ORG主题:再保险:CVE-10K问题On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Mark J Cox wrote: > Red Hat itself moved from 3 digit to 4 digit advisory identifiers at the > start of 2006 (we added several new products and we share identifiers > between security and non-security updates). I forgot to bring this up in my original message. What problems, if any, did Red Hat consumers encounter with this change? Given that there were relatively few complaints with our change from CANs to CVEs, maybe the upcoming CVE-10K change would not be too problematic either. - Steve