Re: Soliciting feedback for the GLSA-2 format

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--HmaEFMsMsGnamDBfRGbXaOiTdrLU4A0EO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 09.01.2014 01:08, Chris Reffett wrote:
> On 01/07/2014 08:42 PM, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
>> On 08.01.2014 02:40, Tobias Heinlein wrote:
>>> Our new approach works more like a whitelist;
>=20
>> "more like a blacklist", that is.
>=20
>=20
> I kind of would like the workaround field to remain (but perhaps be
> optional) since I have seen a few vulns that actually did have
> functional workarounds. Not absolutely necessary.
>=20

Does it need to have its own field, can't it be part of the (temporary)
resolution?

> Chris Reffett
>=20

--=20
Alex Legler <[email protected]>
Gentoo Security/Ruby/Infrastructure


--HmaEFMsMsGnamDBfRGbXaOiTdrLU4A0EO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=lf1k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HmaEFMsMsGnamDBfRGbXaOiTdrLU4A0EO--