Known security vulnerabilities page

I was just reading the nice article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/27934.html and was struck by the "External Links" section I have to wonder: Why exactly are we not updating the known vulnerabilities page? Let's look at this carefully: 1) The vulnerabilities in question are

Re: Known security vulnerabilities page

Boris, full ACK. I have not followed the press, but I do know that the current situation is bad. What I proposed (when the policy was formed), and where I would probably be willing to formally participate, is to warn users about bugs as soon as we know about them. Write * the bugnumber,

Re: Known security vulnerabilities page

Boris Zbarsky wrote: I was just reading the nice article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/27934.html and was struck by the "External Links" section I have to wonder: Why exactly are we not updating the known vulnerabilities page? Actually, comparing the pages, most of them *are*

Re: Known security vulnerabilities page

Ben Bucksch wrote: > Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > >>I was just reading the nice article at >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/27934.html and was struck by >>the "External Links" section I have to wonder: Why exactly are we >>not updating the known vulnerabilities page? > > Actually, co

Re: Known security vulnerabilities page

Dan Veditz wrote: The Register article was from last May, when only one item was listed on the page. Nope. Article says: Mozilla riddled with security holes By John Leyden Posted: 05/11/2002 at 10:38 GMT Frontpage says: *Mozilla riddled with security h

Re: Known security vulnerabilities page

Ben Bucksch wrote: By John Leyden Posted: 05/11/2002 at 10:38 GMT 5 November 2002 10:38am This is today, 2002-11-05 (CET and PST, in ISO notation) Or at least a rant about US reader not knowing that other formats are used, and where they are used.