From owner-freebsd-security Wed Apr 4 17:14:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB2A37B43F for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f350E8t52877; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:14:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Eli Dart Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, pat@databits.net Subject: Re: Fwd: ntpd =< 4.0.99k remote buffer overflow In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:10:19 PDT." <20010405001019.935A027@usul.nersc.gov> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:14:08 +0200 Message-ID: <52875.986429648@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <20010405001019.935A027@usul.nersc.gov>, Eli Dart writes: >--==_Exmh_854596055P >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Any chance these changes could be propagated to the port? It's still >4.0.99k as of 5 minutes ago....ipf rules work in some cases, but not >all...... Sure, pull the patch out of the cvs tree: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/contrib/ntp/ntpd/ntp_control.c.diff?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 It should apply with no problems.... I have to hit the hay now, so somebody else gets to do the honours... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message