From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 16 18:59:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F9DF5A2 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mproxy8.sbb.rs (mproxy8.sbb.rs [89.216.2.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.sbb.rs", Issuer "PositiveSSL CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C356C2A for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:59:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from faust.localdomain (cable-178-148-96-27.dynamic.sbb.rs [178.148.96.27]) by mproxy8.sbb.rs (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8GIx4hU006067 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:59:05 +0200 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at SBB mail Received: by faust.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1194EA41E6C; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:59:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:59:45 +0200 From: Zoran Kolic To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:19.tcp Message-ID: <20140916185945.GA777@faust.sbb.rs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mproxy8.sbb.rs X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:59:18 -0000 > Unfortunately, I don't think your custom kernel got the patch. I made a mess out of this patch, that is for sure. On laptop I previously used freebsd-update for openssl advisory. Now I followed your advice and used patch way. Recompiled a kernel and got p1. I expected p2. However. On desktop, I previously did the same openssl update, today made tcp freebsd-update and recompiled the kernel. Now, I tried to follow the same patch step. To my big surprize, I was asked what file I want to patch. I don't know. Since I do use stateful firewall, not pf, but ipfw, I expect to be on a safe side. So far. Best regards Zoran