Re: Assignment of CVE IDs with 5 or more digits by January 13, 2015

[Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>]

Might I suggest we use a larger ID (e.g. 6 digit one) for the next
"major" issue in order to effectively force people into compliance? I
fear if it's only 5/6 digits for "minor" issues some orgs/vendors may
try to ignore the issue for a while longer. Alternatively maybe hand out
a few blocks of 5/6 digit ID's to vendors like RHT/MSFT/etc.

On 04/01/15 04:04 PM, Steven M. Christey wrote:
> Based on recent discussion on oss-security and general interest, I
> thought it was important to clarify what is currently planned for
> issuing 5-digit CVE IDs by the dealine of January 13, 2015.
>
> Currently, CVE-2014-9509 is our last allocated ID from 2014.  During
> 2015, we will continue to issue CVE-2014-xxxx IDs for other issues that
> were disclosed in 2014, but it is highly unlikely that we will cross the
> 5-digit threshold by January 13.
>
> We will still issue at least one valid 5-digit CVE-2014-xxxxx ID, and
> probably more, on January 13.  This is a one-time exception to our usual
> sequential allocation process.  We are doing this as a final "test" to
> ensure that CVE-using implementations can handle the syntax change.
>
> We might also issue CVE IDs with more than 5 digits, since it is highly
> likely that some implementations will make a 5-digit assumption, even
> though an arbitrary number of digits is allowed by the syntax change,
> which went into effect more than a year ago.
>
>
> Steve Christey Coley
> CVE Editor

-- 
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature