> Am 09.01.2024 um 16:13 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddh...@gotplt.org>:
>
> On 2023-12-18 09:35, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> The "exploitable vulnerability" may lead to a misunderstanding that missed
>> hardening issues are considered vulnerabilities, just that they're not
>> exploitable. This is not true, since while hardening bugs may be
>> security-relevant, the absence of hardening does not make a program any more
>> vulnerable to exploits than without.
>> Drop the "exploitable" word to make it clear that missed hardening is not
>> considered a vulnerability.
>
> Ping, may I commit this if there are no objections?
Go ahead.
Richard
> Thanks,
> Sid
>
>> diff --git a/SECURITY.txt b/SECURITY.txt
>> index b3e2bbfda90..126603d4c22 100644
>> --- a/SECURITY.txt
>> +++ b/SECURITY.txt
>> @@ -155,10 +155,10 @@ Security features implemented in GCC
>> GCC implements a number of security features that reduce the impact
>> of security issues in applications, such as -fstack-protector,
>> -fstack-clash-protection, _FORTIFY_SOURCE and so on. A failure of
>> - these features to function perfectly in all situations is not an
>> - exploitable vulnerability in itself since it does not affect the
>> - correctness of programs. Further, they're dependent on heuristics
>> - and may not always have full coverage for protection.
>> + these features to function perfectly in all situations is not a
>> + vulnerability in itself since it does not affect the correctness of
>> + programs. Further, they're dependent on heuristics and may not
>> + always have full coverage for protection.
>> Similarly, GCC may transform code in a way that the correctness of
>> the expressed algorithm is preserved, but supplementary properties
