2026-10-05 (Monday) Journal

Day summary: Today’s RSS activity: 2 item(s) from infosec.exchange, paperbay.org including “A question for fellow open-source maintainers:Imagine someone uses AI to redevelop your tool in Rust. The result barely works, but they reuse your project’s name and repeatedly jump into discussions about the existing project to promote their version.How would you handle that? I’m usually a nice guy, but I still think that if someone keeps crashing your party, at some point you’re allowed to remind them they weren’t actually invited.#ai #freesoftware #opensource #theory”; “We are pleased to announce the publication of GCVE BCP-07 version 3.0, extending the Known Exploited Vulnerability (KEV) Assertion Format with support for No Known Exploitable Vulnerability (NKEV) assessments. BCP-07 was initially designed to provide a structured, open and federated way to express exploitation assertions, including who made the assertion, when exploitation was observed or declared, what evidence supports it, and with what level of confidence. Version 3.0 keeps this KEV model intact while adding a complementary, product-oriented mechanism to assess whether known vulnerabilities are exploitable in a specific product context.The distinction between KEV and NKEV is fundamental. A KEV assertion states that a producer has observed or otherwise asserts exploitation of a vulnerability. An NKEV assessment approaches the problem from a different direction: a specific product or product version is evaluated against explicitly identified vulnerability knowledge sources to determine whether known vulnerabilities are exploitable in the assessed context. The assessment takes into account the product, its configuration, the defined assessment scope, the knowledge sources consulted and a precise knowledge cut-off time. Its result can be pass, fail or inconclusive, making both the outcome and its limitations explicitly machine-readable.🔗 https://gcve.eu/2026/10/05/gcve-bcp-07-v3.0-from-kev-to-nkev-no-known-exploitable-vulnerability-nkev-assessments/🔗 Standard https://gcve.eu/bcp/gcve-bcp-07/#kev #bcp #gcve #cve #nkev #vulnerabilityManagement #cybersecurity #openstandard”.

Hourly activity:

hour  00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
pulse  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  @  @  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
count 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

A question for fellow open-source maintainers:Imagine someone uses AI to redevelop your tool in Rust. The result barely works, but they reuse your project’s name and repeatedly jump into discussions about the existing project to promote their version.How would you handle that? I’m usually a nice guy, but I still think that if someone keeps crashing your party, at some point you’re allowed to remind them they weren’t actually invited.#ai #freesoftware #opensource #theory

We are pleased to announce the publication of GCVE BCP-07 version 3.0, extending the Known Exploited Vulnerability (KEV) Assertion Format with support for No Known Exploitable Vulnerability (NKEV) assessments. BCP-07 was initially designed to provide a structured, open and federated way to express exploitation assertions, including who made the assertion, when exploitation was observed or declared, what evidence supports it, and with what level of confidence. Version 3.0 keeps this KEV model intact while adding a complementary, product-oriented mechanism to assess whether known vulnerabilities are exploitable in a specific product context.The distinction between KEV and NKEV is fundamental. A KEV assertion states that a producer has observed or otherwise asserts exploitation of a vulnerability. An NKEV assessment approaches the problem from a different direction: a specific product or product version is evaluated against explicitly identified vulnerability knowledge sources to determine whether known vulnerabilities are exploitable in the assessed context. The assessment takes into account the product, its configuration, the defined assessment scope, the knowledge sources consulted and a precise knowledge cut-off time. Its result can be pass, fail or inconclusive, making both the outcome and its limitations explicitly machine-readable.🔗 https://gcve.eu/2026/10/05/gcve-bcp-07-v3.0-from-kev-to-nkev-no-known-exploitable-vulnerability-nkev-assessments/🔗 Standard https://gcve.eu/bcp/gcve-bcp-07/#kev #bcp #gcve #cve #nkev #vulnerabilityManagement #cybersecurity #openstandard