Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:37:09 +0100 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kerberos: base or port? [Was: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-20:33.openssl] Message-ID: <3ddff964-73f1-ed41-777c-a4c785414fd9@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <20201212181821.GO64351@kduck.mit.edu> References: <20201209230300.03251CA1@freefall.freebsd.org> <0ccfbeb4-c4e1-53e6-81e8-112318cd9bf1@netfence.it> <20201211202315.GK64351@kduck.mit.edu> <08c18c5e-d0fe-16c2-dd17-af5162fd8716@netfence.it> <20201212181821.GO64351@kduck.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/20 7:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Having two different instances of libcrypto in the same address space is > generally asking for trouble Of course. That's why I was always wary about switching to a newer/shinier OpenSSL from ports (wihtout eradicating the old one from base). You are right, "with sufficient care to detail" it will work, but it's going to be a lot of testing. > Understood. Thanks for following up anyway! You are welcome! Really! > None of those quite seem like they qualify as being complicated uses, so > there is probably not much immediate benefit from switching, for you. Thanks a lot for clarifying. > Sorry to have been a little too sensationalist, there. Well, you being "sorry" means me being safe and safe is better than sorry :) bye av.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ddff964-73f1-ed41-777c-a4c785414fd9>