Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:09:02 +0200 From: Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net> To: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-security <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bind9 and CVE-2013-4854 Message-ID: <20130729100902.GM59101@e-new.0x20.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B7WWSejypEnci4vrDm=sNDP5RZyojsHHFb%2BJYsHxLjKQR4CyA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130726230549.GB64252@lonrach.local> <CAMCLrkF8u-UmMnfG9=RkGMWYZn%2BL4vK7Mg1XW_pa9HbdLx4r8w@mail.gmail.com> <20130727085458.GB68862@lonrach.local> <46029EF7-D574-4953-AE8D-4BA79F5295BB@plosh.net> <20130727210809.GA70513@lonrach.local> <CA%2B7WWSejypEnci4vrDm=sNDP5RZyojsHHFb%2BJYsHxLjKQR4CyA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--oJoa/b7Rsqp4yzB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:03:43PM +0300, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > A question related to this: >=20 > What is it that prevents BIND from being removed from the base when > there are very well working ports of BIND already that are far easier > to update when vulnerabilities are found. Is it the dig(1), host(1) > and nslookup(1) utilities? Yes. --oJoa/b7Rsqp4yzB0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlH2Pz4ACgkQKc512sD3afgNUgCgmGUvFJuJbYdWiG1On3KIoZDS tEEAn1Kqi1aOWxwvQBLZ2OOhhVHnjqZd =D/1Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oJoa/b7Rsqp4yzB0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130729100902.GM59101>