2026-08-11 22:17:13 +00:00
1 changed files with 12 additions and 3 deletions
@@ -109,9 +109,18 @@ CRITICAL came from, and an image with no window is not counted at all.
 python3 cc-ci-plan/audit-sources.py --security-sources
 ```
 A recipe whose sources yield **no CVE data at all** cannot produce a meaningful `0` — nothing was
-measured, the same way a missing registry file cannot. As of 2026-08-11 that is **mattermost-lts**
-(its GitHub advisory feed is empty and its security bulletins are client-side rendered) and
-**mumble**. Render those as **`?`**, not `0`, and say why in the notes.
+measured, the same way a missing registry file cannot. Render those as **`?`**, not `0`.
+
+**The fleet is currently at zero such recipes.** The last two — `mattermost-lts` (empty advisory
+feed, client-side-rendered bulletins) and `mumble` (nothing published anywhere) — were fixed by
+declaring an NVD CPE in their registry:
+```
+- nvd-cpe: mattermost-team-edition = cpe:2.3:a:mattermost:mattermost_server:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
+```
+**If this sweep ever reports a blind recipe again, that is the fix**: find the product's CPE at
+nvd.nist.gov and add the line. Prefer a real advisory feed or an attributable changelog when one
+exists — NVD lags the vendor — but a lagging source beats no source, and it turns a `?` into a
+number.

 An *unparseable page* is NOT the same thing: it is harmless when the same project also publishes an
 advisory feed (redis, gitea, minio, clickhouse all do). Only "no usable source for this image" counts.