From owner-freebsd-security  Thu Aug 28 14:36:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22038
          for security-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22029
          for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA06146;
	Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:36:39 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:36:39 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199708282136.XAA06146@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: Omar Thameen <omar@clifford.inch.com>
CC: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Omar Thameen's message of Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:29:57 -0400
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-97:04.procfs
References: <199708261803.UAA00666@gvr.gvr.org>
	<19970828102957.48802@clifford.inch.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> What's the official word on whether 2.1.7 is vulnerable?  I know below
> says that 2.1.* is, but the previous discussion indicated that it was
> not.  I personally haven't gotten the exploit to work, but I may be doing
> something wrong.

The exploit need to be tailored for each branch.  2.1 is vulnerable.

Eivind.