Re: Concerns about CVE coverage shrinking - direct impact to researchers/companies

[Robert Paprocki <rpaprocki () fearnothingproductions net>]

This thread should be the definition of Munroe's Law. Like Goodwin's Law, which states that the longer an online 
conversation continues, the probability that it will involve Nazi analogies reaches 1, Munroe's Law says that 
eventually any conversation about an existing standard reaches no conclusions other than to create a new standard. 

https://xkcd.com/927

> On Mar 6, 2016, at 08:16, Solar Designer <solar () openwall com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 03:47:19PM +0000, op7ic x00 wrote:
> > agree, the vanity hunting is going to be there but I suppose as with any
> > bug ID that is going to happen.
> > But beyond that I don't think it matters as much. In the end of the day if
> > somebody can use OVI or OVE to identify their bug then at least we got some
> > level of reference to look it up on google.
>
> Right.
>
> > I was toying with 4digit IDs that would be random enough, thats a
> > possiblity too, the only problem is that there is a overhead of doing DB
> > sorting and lookups to make sure their don't clash. Thats why ovi uses
> > sequential numbers - its just easier to manage.
>
> Oh, you (would) use an actual database backend?  OVE currently uses a C
> program with a tiny binary data file (to keep track of per-IP and
> per-netblock consumption of IDs, as well as the current date and ID),
> and the file is wiped clean (by this same program) on first access after
> midnight.  I wrote this yesterday in response to the thread in here.
>
> For random IDs, if we wanted those, there are shuffling algorithms that
> don't require storage yet guarantee unique numbers (until the target
> range is exhausted) - they're good e.g. for IP ID and DNS sequence
> numbers - although checking against an array of 10k numbers is almost
> instant anyway (as far as this application is concerned).
>
> Anyway, this is getting off-topic.
>
> Alexander