From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org  Sun Apr 11 19:49:35 2021
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7C05D9CD0
 for <freebsd-security@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:49:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gpiero@rm-rf.it)
Received: from serafino.rm-rf.it (serafino.rm-rf.it [192.165.67.94])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FJMrt3yJ9z4WR6
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:49:34 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from gpiero@rm-rf.it)
Received: from valentina.fdc.rm-rf.it (valentina.fdc.rm-rf.it [192.168.192.1])
 by serafino.fdc.rm-rf.it (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id a94af456
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
 Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:49:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from robinhood.fdc.rm-rf.it (robinhood.fdc.rm-rf.it [192.168.192.50])
 by valentina.fdc.rm-rf.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5030A1F6B0
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:49:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by robinhood.fdc.rm-rf.it (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id 2749F601F2E; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:49:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:49:32 +0200
From: Gian Piero Carrubba <gpiero@rm-rf.it>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-21:08.vm
Message-ID: <20210411194932.t4a6dtjdvhynj2uf@robinhood.fdc.rm-rf.it>
References: <20210406202258.1642E15C4A@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <20210406202303.3B6F715D1E@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <20210406202309.EECD015EA7@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <20210411075824.fzrbnrtus6iiw2cq@robinhood.fdc.rm-rf.it>
 <20210411192125.knknarbiul3alggx@robinhood.fdc.rm-rf.it>
 <ab68d1d4-5ba3-3e94-b381-3b6d86516796@quip.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ab68d1d4-5ba3-3e94-b381-3b6d86516796@quip.cz>
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FJMrt3yJ9z4WR6
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none;
 spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of gpiero@rm-rf.it designates 192.165.67.94
 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gpiero@rm-rf.it
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.70 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[192.165.67.94:from];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
 R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:192.165.67.94];
 MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[];
 PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-security@freebsd.org];
 RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
 SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[192.165.67.94:from:127.0.2.255];
 RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[rm-rf.it];
 NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000];
 FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:34971, ipnet:192.165.67.0/24, country:IT];
 RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-security]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:49:35 -0000

* [Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 09:36:05PM +0200] Miroslav Lachman:
>On 11/04/2021 21:21, Gian Piero Carrubba wrote:
>>CCing ports-secteam@ as it seems a more appropriate recipient.
>
>Vulnerabilities in base should be handled by core secteam, not ports 
>secteam.

The maintainer address for vuxml is ports-secteam@, so my impression is 
that entries in vuxml, regardless if they affect base or ports, are 
managed by them. Am I wrong?