Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:25:38 -0400
From:      "Jonathan M. Slivko" <jmslivko@mindspring.com>
To:        "Igor Roshchin" <str@giganda.komkon.org>, <security@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: advisory suggestion
Message-ID:  <000b01c02b4e$e499c4e0$2f4679a5@p4f0i0>
References:  <200010010212.WAA49025@giganda.komkon.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I totally agree on that point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
  Jonathan M. Slivko, President & Founder - Linux Mafia Internet Services
  Phone: (212) 663-1109               -            Pager: (917) 388-5304
(24/7)
  Webpage: http://www.linux-mafia.net        --     "In FreeBSD We Trust!"
  AIM SN: OptixNYC                     -- Network Solutions Handle: JSR730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Roshchin" <str@giganda.komkon.org>
To: <security@freebsd.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 10:12 PM
Subject: advisory suggestion


>
> I remember there was a discussion 1-2 years ago,
>  on how to state in advisories which versions of FreeBSD are vulnerable.
> Unfortunately I don't remember what was the final consensus,
> but may I make a suggestion based on the recent advisory?
>
> Sometimes, it is difficult to recall when a particular release was
> rolled out. So, say, if I have a box running 3.5.1 - and I start
> thinkin if that one is affected, I'd have to go to an ftp server
> and check the dates of the release, which makes it not very convenient.
> Well, 4.1.1 is out just a few days ago, so it is easier to recall that
date,
> but if another advisory would come out a month from now, and would have
> the fix date of September 30, I wouldn't remember if it was before
> or after 4.1.1 was out.
> Otherwise, I think the current format is very clear.
>
> So, my suggestion is:
> when there are additional releases in N.K-STABLE (or N.K-CURRENT) branch
> (or to be more exact the particular N.K version of the branch)
> besides N.K-RELEASE (such as N.K.1-RELEASE), it would be nice
> to have a clause in there:
>
> Affects: FreeBSD.....
> ... including 3.5.1-RELEASE
>
> Corrected: ....
>      (including 4.1.1-RELEASE [and later])
>
> Regards,
>
> Igor
>
>
> > From: FreeBSD Security Advisories <security-advisories@FreeBSD.ORG>
> > To: FreeBSD Security Advisories <security-advisories@FreeBSD.ORG>
> > Subject: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-00:53.catopen
> > Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >
============================================================================
=
> > FreeBSD-SA-00:53                                            Security
Advisory
> >                                                                 FreeBSD,
Inc.
> >
> > Topic:          catopen() may pose security risk for third party code
> >
> > Category:       core
> > Module:         libc
> > Announced:      2000-09-27
> > Affects:        FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT, 4.x and 3.x prior to the correction
date.
> > Corrected:      Problem 1: 2000-08-06 (FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT)
> >                            2000-08-22 (FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE)
> >                            2000-09-07 (FreeBSD 3.5-STABLE)
> >                 Problem 2: 2000-09-08 (FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT, 4.1-STABLE
and
> >                                        3.5-STABLE)
> <..>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000b01c02b4e$e499c4e0$2f4679a5>