U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
ACTUAL effective improvements to security come from building mitigations to kill entire classes of vulns, not bug hunting. You can stumble on a single CVE, does that make you leet? No. If you find 80+ while fuzzing a component? Maybe, POC||GTFO applies tho And, finally..(2/3)
If you still think having a CVE to your name proves your skills, remember this:
You can literally ask MITRE for a CVE if/when a vendor denies you one. CVE for DLL planting? lolz, ok. CVE on a component/OS version no longer supported by the vendor? 
Be better to each other.
Whilst I agree that CVEs doesn't prove you skills, you seem to doubt the CVE process in general. Hell yea you should have a CVE on unsupported software. Imagine CVE-2017-0144 was only vulnerable on XP. Should one not have been issued because XP is no longer supported?
I don't doubt the process; my point is CVEs aren't a metric of skill (or lack thereof)
MS17-010 affected many platforms & XP was simply one of them - that XP got the CVE means we patched it. Some ppl find vulns only affecting XP, demand a CVE, get denied, then go ask MITRE 
I’m struggling to find the link, but this reminds me of the guy who got a CVE for finding vulns in someone’s Sophmore college project. You can request a CVE for almost anything.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
![—(÷[ Nate Warfield speaking @ BlueHat IL ]÷)—](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/993965609338552320/Q9Ocq8w1_400x400.jpg){kind=avatar}
![—(÷[ Nate Warfield speaking @ BlueHat IL ]÷)—](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/993965609338552320/Q9Ocq8w1.jpg)
