ACC 3.2.1's output is not sufficient
See original GitHub issueHi,
is there no specific CVE for Apache commons collection 3.2.1?
I only get CVE-2015-6420 (reads like Cisco only) and CVE-2017-15708 (reads like Apache Synapse) only. I also wasn’t able to find anything else except CVE-2015-7501 which sounds like JBoss / Oracle only.
This can indicate to the user that there’s no problem using this library which sounds like a bug to me.
Wouldn’t it make sense for this renowned vulnerability at least to add something which doesn’t come from the feed?
Thanks, Dirk
PS: Dependency-Check Core version 5.2.3-SNAPSHOT
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 4 years ago
- Comments:8 (8 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
OpenACC Programming and Best Practices Guide
This guide presents methods and best practices for accelerating applications in an incremental, performance portable way. Although some of the examples may ...
Read more >2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients ...
Recording aortic valve hemodynamics with exercise is of limited value and does not show additive value for predicting clinical outcome when ...
Read more >Cisco IOS Configuration Fundamentals Command Reference
A large amount of output can be generated by this command, which may easily exceed buffer or system memory on smaller platforms. Also,...
Read more >VMware NSX-T Data Center 3.2 Release Notes
NSX-T native Load Balancer - Load balancing features would not be added or enhanced going ... LogicalPort GET API output in NSX-T 3.2...
Read more >The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction - ERIC
Swain has pointed out that comprehensible input might not be sufficient to de- velop native-like grammatical competence and learners also need comprehensi-.
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Yes I am pushing the responsibility of the data to another location. When I originally designed dependency-check one of the key tenets was that the project was not going to maintain a database mapping dependencies to CPE/CVE. We’ve gotten away from that a little with our hints and suppression files. Maintenance of an enhanced data-set is one of the things you will get with commercial offerings.
This project is 100% free, I do not make any money at all on this project - I am not a consultant, nor do I use this project at my day job. By creating an enhanced data-feed it adds an additional maintenance burden on the project that I feel is unacceptable.
Any updates to an enhanced data-feed would only benefit this project. However, if one were to contact the NVD suggesting updates to a vulnerability (I have and you can too - email them at nvd@nist.gov) you then benefit everyone that uses the NVD data including other OWASP projects like dependency-track.
Why should I? As said the perception of the user matters and I am a user of this tool and it doesn’t show me anything related which seems dangerous.
PS: yes, I read the Apache blog.