From owner-freebsd-security  Fri Feb 16 09:58:49 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA19968
          for security-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA19963
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.shockwave.com (localhost.shockwave.com [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA15558; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199602161757.JAA15558@precipice.shockwave.com>
To: Guy Helmer <ghelmer@alpha.dsu.edu>
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: named update 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:15:53 CST."
             <Pine.OSF.3.91.960216090524.4301D-100000@alpha.dsu.edu> 
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:57:32 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

I believe our nameds in 2.05 and 2.1 are fine, they were 4.9.3 beta9.

  From: Guy Helmer <ghelmer@alpha.dsu.edu>
  Subject: named update
  Does anyone know the named version details surrounding the named problem
  that CERT just reported?  I just don't know which version tries to close
  up the hole.  Is named in 2.0.5 and 2.1.0 a vulnerable version? 
  
  Thanks to anyone who can shed light on this,
  Guy
  
  Guy Helmer, Dakota State University Computing Services - ghelmer@alpha.dsu.ed
>>u