<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CVSS v2 Official</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.computerdefense.org/2007/06/cvss-v2-official/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.computerdefense.org/2007/06/cvss-v2-official/</link>
	<description>Sharing my thoughts with the world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:58:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jgraver</title>
		<link>http://www.computerdefense.org/2007/06/cvss-v2-official/comment-page-1/#comment-77541</link>
		<dc:creator>jgraver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=337#comment-77541</guid>
		<description>CVSS v2 is a big improvement over the mess that is CVSS v1. On their History Page http://www.first.org/cvss/history.html they admit that Vendors were experiencing some wide variance in scores. There is even some mention of XSS and possible ways to score it. 

CVSS v2 won&#039;t end the controversy, but at least I can say CVSS Score without doing little &quot;air quotes&quot; with my hands.

It is good to see this standard moving forward again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CVSS v2 is a big improvement over the mess that is CVSS v1. On their History Page <a href="http://www.first.org/cvss/history.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.first.org/cvss/history.html</a> they admit that Vendors were experiencing some wide variance in scores. There is even some mention of XSS and possible ways to score it. </p>
<p>CVSS v2 won&#039;t end the controversy, but at least I can say CVSS Score without doing little &quot;air quotes&quot; with my hands.</p>
<p>It is good to see this standard moving forward again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trevor</title>
		<link>http://www.computerdefense.org/2007/06/cvss-v2-official/comment-page-1/#comment-15785</link>
		<dc:creator>trevor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=337#comment-15785</guid>
		<description>I agree - great step forward. I have dome some v2 scoring and it was MUCH more what I would expect</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8211; great step forward. I have dome some v2 scoring and it was MUCH more what I would expect</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jgraver</title>
		<link>http://www.computerdefense.org/2007/06/cvss-v2-official/comment-page-1/#comment-15407</link>
		<dc:creator>jgraver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=337#comment-15407</guid>
		<description>CVSS v2 is a big improvement over the mess that is CVSS v1. On their History Page http://www.first.org/cvss/history.html they admit that Vendors were experiencing some wide variance in scores. There is even some mention of XSS and possible ways to score it. 

CVSS v2 won&#039;t end the controversy, but at least I can say CVSS Score without doing little &quot;air quotes&quot; with my hands.

It is good to see this standard moving forward again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CVSS v2 is a big improvement over the mess that is CVSS v1. On their History Page <a href="http://www.first.org/cvss/history.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.first.org/cvss/history.html</a> they admit that Vendors were experiencing some wide variance in scores. There is even some mention of XSS and possible ways to score it. </p>
<p>CVSS v2 won&#8217;t end the controversy, but at least I can say CVSS Score without doing little &#8220;air quotes&#8221; with my hands.</p>
<p>It is good to see this standard moving forward again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

