Because in many cases the CVE vulnerability report is used as a proxy for existance of a vulnerability by many: from clickbait journalism, to automated tool vendors and device procurement. It is, after all, published by a reputable source.
Then, you get a report, say, that calling X with malicious data causes reboot. DoS! But software vendor looks at it and sees that in order to call X you need so much permissions, you can do reboot directly. What now?
Also, not every report submitted to be published as CVE goes immedeately public. Where does it go? If there is CVE about RCE in popular software, who knew about it before it went public?
because you end up spending a non-trivial amount of time with "soc analysts" bugging you about a bluetooth vulnerability on an os installed on a virtual machine on a server that lacks bluetooth hardware, for example
Some. Others are on Matrix. The type of people you're thinking of are either interested in secure development (programmers with a security interest) or cryptography. Either they choose wherever the project's chat platform is or it's discord typically.
The modern infosec scene has shockingly little in common with the old school cypherpunk / hacker scene, besides appropriating the aesthetics and lingo.
Many of the people in it are even pro-information-censorship, pro-government, pro-intelligence-agencies, pro-big tech, etc. They have zero concerns about proprietary software, they trust Microsoft, they trust Google/Alphabet, they trust their government.
In my experience talking with these types, many of the same ones hysterical about MITRE's taxpayer-funded contract ending have seemingly never ever heard of OSVDB - the idea of a community-run vulnerability database is foreign to them. They seem to believe that it's simply not possible for a non-government-funded entity to perform this kind of work without commercialization.
Offensive Security - the company behind the OSCP, OSEP (formerly OSCE), and OSEE - have their official, primary support through Discord first, their own forums second.
The post spends too much time speculating about how CVE is mismanaged without providing anything beyond their unmet expectations. Pointing to VulnCon attendance as an act of betrayal seems pretty reductive.
Didn’t make it through the rest, it was too hyperbolic and opinionated without substance.
The author spoke of uncertainty that CVE will be around, and also said that some parties involved didn't appear forthright on some occasions. What wasn't clear to me is the "What's your threat model?" here.
I'd guess the threat model to include things like "How likely is this org to disappear from the face of the Earth?" and "How susceptible is this org going to be to outside influences that have priorities higher than the honest/accurate/timely reporting of vulnerabilities?".
Then, you get a report, say, that calling X with malicious data causes reboot. DoS! But software vendor looks at it and sees that in order to call X you need so much permissions, you can do reboot directly. What now?
Also, not every report submitted to be published as CVE goes immedeately public. Where does it go? If there is CVE about RCE in popular software, who knew about it before it went public?
Are open-source-y type infosec people choosing Discord?
Many of the people in it are even pro-information-censorship, pro-government, pro-intelligence-agencies, pro-big tech, etc. They have zero concerns about proprietary software, they trust Microsoft, they trust Google/Alphabet, they trust their government.
In my experience talking with these types, many of the same ones hysterical about MITRE's taxpayer-funded contract ending have seemingly never ever heard of OSVDB - the idea of a community-run vulnerability database is foreign to them. They seem to believe that it's simply not possible for a non-government-funded entity to perform this kind of work without commercialization.
Offensive Security - the company behind the OSCP, OSEP (formerly OSCE), and OSEE - have their official, primary support through Discord first, their own forums second.
Didn’t make it through the rest, it was too hyperbolic and opinionated without substance.