4 ms·
Only for major problems, and even then it seems iffy. I have trouble remembering which specific issue Meltdown actually refers to a couple years on. Personally
by _jal 4y ago
Only for major problems, and even then it seems iffy. I have trouble remembering which specific issue Meltdown actually refers to a couple years on.
Personally, I'm totally fine with CVEs. (And if people to stop acting like QIDs are interchangeable, that would be great, too.)
- tptacek 4y agoYou would have no connection to the underlying vulnerability whatsoever if I just mentioned CVE-2017-5754 to you.
- _jal 4y agoNo, but I can establish context in about 10 seconds, and then it doesn't matter. And you won't remember what WhizzyBadBug refers to in 5 years, you'll have to look it up. It'll only take you 10 seconds or so.
- tptacek 4y agoI don't know. The example you chose was Meltdown. I think most people in the field heard Meltdown and can at least place it into the right bucket, of microarchitectural attacks. But more to the point: Meltdown in the moment was far more useful than a CVE number.
- juliusdavies 4y agoWithout looking: Struts !!!! But not 100% sure I got it right. Update: And I'm completely wrong. :-)