Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:35:32 -0800 From: Darren Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> To: Remko Lodder <remko@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:31.ntp Message-ID: <549DE2B4.4080806@bluerosetech.com> In-Reply-To: <25260C1A-8230-47BD-9FAF-585D2B560303@FreeBSD.org> References: <20141223233310.098C54BB6@nine.des.no> <549C4D71.6030704@bluerosetech.com> <25260C1A-8230-47BD-9FAF-585D2B560303@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/25/2014 11:36 AM, Remko Lodder wrote: > >> On 25 Dec 2014, at 18:46, Darren Pilgrim >> <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/23/2014 3:33 PM, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote: >>> IV. Workaround >>> >>> No workaround is available, >> >> This was fixed in ports/net/ntp on Dec 20, so a workaround exists >> in the form of disabling the in-base version and installing the >> port. In the future, it would be helpful to mention such. > > We talk explicitly about the base system, not about ports. We never > mentioned them and I do not see a reason to start doing so. I don't understand why you wouldn't. It's a legitimate way of mitigating non-technical problems with system administration. For example, many organizations make scheduling a reboot harder/slower than scheduling the restart of a single service. Temporarily switching to the port in such cases is a very useful bandaid.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?549DE2B4.4080806>