Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:10:41 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [security-advisories@freebsd.org: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-03:17.procfs] Message-ID: <20031004021041.GA33705@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20031004015404.GW72999@procyon.firepipe.net> References: <20031004014527.GB32411@pit.databus.com> <20031004015404.GW72999@procyon.firepipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:54:04PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:45:27PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote: > > I'm finally motivated to ask, why don't security advisories contain > > the equivalent revs for -head? Surely I can't be the only person > > following -current who doesn't build every day. > > Simply because the SO does not support -CURRENT. Does this mean that the situation can ever arise where a security bug is corrected in the advisory's announced releases but not in -current? Or, can we assume that as of the time of the security announcement the vulnerability has *always* been corrected in -current? Thanks, Barney -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031004021041.GA33705>