On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:> Why are there separate directories for CANs and CVEs? Do you plan to > move entries from the CAN/list file to the CVE/list file once they > lose their candidate status? >Hi there, This was due to the way that Mitre organised their information. We will indeed be moving to using just CVEs when they change the way their system works. Have a look at: http://www.cve.mitre.org/news/index.html Regards, Neil -- __ .´ `. neilm@debian.org | Application Manager : :'' ! ---------------- | Secure-Testing Team member `. `´ gpg: B345BDD3 | Webapps Team member `- Please don''t cc, I''m subscribed to the list
Florian Weimer wrote:> Why are there separate directories for CANs and CVEs? Do you plan to > move entries from the CAN/list file to the CVE/list file once they > lose their candidate status?Luckily we''re not going to have to worry about this since all the CANs will be renamed to CVEs in october and the distinction will be gone. -- see shy jo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-team/attachments/20050910/85c7df8c/attachment.pgp
* Joey Hess:> Florian Weimer wrote: >> Why are there separate directories for CANs and CVEs? Do you plan to >> move entries from the CAN/list file to the CVE/list file once they >> lose their candidate status? > > Luckily we''re not going to have to worry about this since all the CANs > will be renamed to CVEs in october and the distinction will be gone.Ah, good. The distinction didn''t make much sense anyway because the review lagged quite a bit. (My main concern was that moving the entries from one file to another would break "svn annotate".)