> It's therefore a denial of service

That doesn't follow. In the extremely simple example, an adding service returning 1+1=3 has a bug, but it's not a possible DoS situation at all.

> missing but planned features also deny the use of said features

That's not what DoS is.

This whole situation with CVE assigning comes from the whole process being far from ideal. But it doesn't mean it's completely useless and doesn't follow any rules at all.

▲

Gigachad 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

>but it's not a possible DoS situation at all.

Until someone finds there is a user input they can trigger this bug causing some other bit of code to read data from the wrong offset and now it's a whole exploit.

	▲	viraptor 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's an issue in the other code, not in the addition service. It would be lumped together if it was an addition function close to the other code. But I wrote service there on purpose.