On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 08:41:04PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote:
>
>
> way he sees fit. I gave this issue CVE-2006-4811. Typically, when someone
> reports a security issue to a group such as vendor-sec, it is quickly given
> a CVE id before analysis is complete so there is no confusion. It's not
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:11:24PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote:
> >
> > Use CVE- for this issue.
> >
>
> the redhat persons means for THIS:
> (the png is well formed, but the redhat person wasn't elligible to know it.)
>
Georgie's logic behind this behavior baffles me, but he's free to act in
On 10/13/06, Georgi Guninski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:11:24PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote:
> >
> > Use CVE- for this issue.
> >
>
> the redhat persons means for THIS:
> (the png is well formed, but the redhat person wasn't elligible to know it.)
>
>
> -
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:11:24PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote:
>
> Use CVE- for this issue.
>
the redhat persons means for THIS:
(the png is well formed, but the redhat person wasn't elligible to know it.)
---
IMG, DIV
{
width: 16394px;
height: 262160px;
