The issue terminology you want to look for is "diverged too much from upstream" or a bunch of different similar EOL or end-of-life or "end of life" tags that are not standardized in any security tracker's format. I'd argue that both security teams use a software that uses free-form textareas for setting the tags of the issues (e.g. closed, fixed, and other).
Accumulative word list that might be incomplete, to discover those kind of issues:
- "bug, not a security problem"
- "cannot reproduce"
- "eol"
- "end-of-life"
- "end of standard support"
- "end of esm support"
- "out of standard support"
- "reached end of life"
- "ignored"
- "changes too intrusive"
- "contains no code"
- "code is different"
- "code is very different"
- "code not built"
- "code not compiled"
- "code-not-compiled"
- "code not present"
- "code not-present"
- "code-not-present"
- "code not shipped"
- "not-in-code"
- "disputed"
- "fix would break"
- "intrusive"
- "not remotely exploitable"
- "was deferred"
- "was needed"
- "was pending"
- "no server code"
- "no update available"
- "no security impact"
- "not available"
- "not security vulnerability"
- "not supported"
- "not upstream fix"
- "ugly backport"
- "update not available"
- "upstream version is not redistributable"
- "removed from archive"
- "replaced by"
- "superseded"
- "superseded by"
- "too intrusive"
Source: Am building a scraper and vulnerability database that is cross-distro, and has different confidence factors for different linux distributions (for mentioned reasons). [4]
[1] https://www.debian.org/security/oval/oval-definitions-bullse...
[2] https://security-metadata.canonical.com/oval/com.ubuntu.jamm...
[3] https://salsa.debian.org/security-tracker-team/security-trac...