Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by coldpie 918 days ago
The vulnerability branding trend is stupid, but I'm not sure it's worse for communicating what you're talking about than "CVE-2023-129038, 109239, and 120993" or "Those 5G vulnerabilities from uh I think 2022 or 2023? No not those, the other ones." Is there a better method?
1 comments
fragmede 918 days ago
I don't think it's stupid because I can't, off the top of my head, tell you the CVE number for Heartbleed, despite being very involved with it for a couple of weeks.

Heartbleed I remember, along with Spectre/Meltdown, but I couldn't name the weak exploits that turn out to be nothing burgers. Log4j could have used a brand though, imo.

link
andrewxdiamond 918 days ago
How often do you need CVE numbers while simultaneously being unable to google for the CVE number?
link
genmud 917 days ago
Because everyone called it heartbleed.

I still remember some of the big ones like MS03-026/031, MS08-067, CVE-2005-1042.

link