Re: RE: Concerns about CVE coverage shrinking - direct impact to researchers/companies

[Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez () igalia com>]

On 06/03/16 19:46, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 03/ 4/16 04:07 PM, Tim wrote:
> > * No moderation required.  Let the public decide if they believe the
> >    researcher or vendor.  If a moderator does bother to look over the
> >    content, they could deduplicate/link issues together and address any
> >    confusion, but beyond that, it isn't their job to decide what is a
> >    vulnerability and what isn't.
>
> If the site displays *any* user-submitted text, you need at least enough
> moderation to filter out spammers & trolls.

I don't think you need that level of moderation if you implement basic
measures against spammers like requiring the creation of an account with
e-mail verification.

Just look to all the public bugzillas out there that allow commenting
(mozilla, webkit, redhat, gnome, etc). I don't think they have a problem
with spam. But you have to create an account first to do any comment.

Of course any account used for spam is blocked by the moderators. So the
spammer has to create a new one, which is just not worth the effort.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature