2

I was wondering if there was a reason to keep and distinct.

A vulnerability which is known to the designers, implementers, or operators of the system, but has not been corrected.

A weakness or flaw in computer software and hardware which allows an attacker to take advantage of (exploit) a targeted system.

In addition to being often used in duo, isn't a very stable property, and might change at any point in time.

I would suggest this is merged to

| |
1

The only vulnerabilities excluded from the known ones are those that are not discovered yet... And they are a bit hard to ask questions about. So yeah, I agree that the tags are confusing and not very useful.

I suspect that the purpose of was for question about how to systematically deal with known vulnerabilities in an organization, as opposed to how to deal with one specific vulnerability. But that is not how the tag is used, and there is a much better tag for that: . (Perhaps one might first want to do a quick scroll through to find questions to retag with before doing a merge.)

But still... I am not sure I even like the tag. I don't understand what questions are not about vulnerabilities? At the very least, it is a very broad tag. I would not cry if we killed it as well... but do not let that stand in the way of improving things on the margin - so yes, I am in favor of a merge.

| |
  • There's a large part of security that's not related to vulnerabilities (at least directly). Regulations, audits for example. – M'vy Jan 23 '18 at 12:50
  • 1
    @M'vy Fair point. I still feel the tag is to broad even if it just coveres 50%. But I think with tags every improvement is valuable even if it does not lead to heavenly perfection. So for now I think your suggestion to merge is a great step in the right direction. – Anders Jan 23 '18 at 13:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .