| I don't know any insider, but obtaining a CVE was not really difficult: http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/231 (and it was not even my project... I just reported the bug) Now the workflow changed a bit, in the link that you shared in fact it says "For open source software products not listed below, request a CVE ID through the Distributed Weakness Filing Project CNA." which is just an easy-to-fill Google form. Not such a close system as you seem to imply (OTOH, obviously CVE cannot guarantee or pretend to have universal coverage of every security issue ever existed) I generally like systemd, but it's irresponsible to not publicly communicate about such an issue if you're aware that it's actually a security issue fix bugs before investigating, that's ok... but not communicating it means that you'll leave users downstream exposed to it, since it won't prompt maintainers to ship the patch/upgrade |
The complaint was that the CVE should've 1) been included in the commit 2) been made. IMO the entire thing is confusing.
Also like to repeat: it's super nice that things are reported and have a CVE. But that doesn't mean every security commit will be seen as related to security.
I'm pretty sure I've seen enough interesting commits in gdk-pixbuf: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdk-pixbuf/commit/?id=49dcd2d58...