Solar Designer <[email protected]> writes: >I guess because (ir)relevance isn't among criteria for (not) assigning a CVE, >and because there may be value in having a non-ambiguous way to refer to >historical vulnerabilities for illustration of how the current ones fit in >historical context.
... and because it was a bit of fun. Not everything has to be serious, it was nice to see the CISA folks have a sense of humour :-). >The 2025 in this CVE is almost certainly wrong, but I understand that no one >had the resources to figure out the year it was first discovered. They were unable to assign a 1973 CVE so used 2025, the year it was (re-)discovered, instead. Peter.
