[StopDisinfo910]

They are not published in project bug trackers and are managed completely differently so no, personally, I don't view CVE as bug reports. Also, please, don't distrort what I say and omit part of my comment, thank you.

Some of them are not even bugs in the traditional sense of the world but expected behaviours which can lead to unsecure side effects.

[jsnell]

It seems like you might misunderstand what CVEs are? They're just identifiers.

This was a bug, which caused an exploitable security vulnerability. The bug was reported to ffmpeg, over their preferred method for being notified about vulnerabilities in the software they maintain. Once ffmpeg fixed the bug, a CVE number was issued for the purpose of tracking (e.g. which versions are vulnerable, which were never vulnerable, which have a fix).

Having a CVE identifier is important because we can't just talk about "the ffmpeg vulnerability" when there have been a dozen this year, each with different attack surfaces. But it really is just an arbitrary number, while the bug is the actual problem.

[StopDisinfo910]

I'm not misunderstanding anything. CVE involves a third party and it's not just a number. It's a number and an evaluation of severity.

Things which are usually managed inside a project now have a visibility outside of it. You might justify it as you want like the need to have an identifier. It doesn't fundamentally change how that impacts the dynamic.

Also, the discussion is not about a specific bug. It's a general discussion regarding how Google handles disclosure in the general case.