<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Cve on Ampretia:Dev</title><link>https://ampretia.co.uk/tags/cve/</link><description>Recent content in Cve on Ampretia:Dev</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://ampretia.co.uk/tags/cve/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>We're Going on a CVE Hunt</title><link>https://ampretia.co.uk/post/2026-08-14-cve-hunt/</link><pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://ampretia.co.uk/post/2026-08-14-cve-hunt/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Two scanners. One said nothing. One said there was a problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&amp;rsquo;s where this started — and that gap is exactly the kind of thing that should make you curious rather than relieved.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;!-- raw HTML omitted --&gt;
&lt;h2 id="the-setup"&gt;The Setup&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The container registry scanner — the main one, the one whose output the team relied on — flagged nothing. All clear. The secondary scanner, run as part of a broader policy check, flagged a mid-severity CVE from 2024. Old finding, mid-level severity, and the primary scanner wasn&amp;rsquo;t concerned. The natural read: false positive, secondary scanner being noisy, move on.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>