Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:28:58 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r417842 - head/security/vuxml Message-ID: <1467322138.3172610.653592441.61683319@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <201606302116.u5ULGObZ089496@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201606302116.u5ULGObZ089496@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, at 16:16, Cy Schubert wrote: > Cy Schubert writes: > > In message <201606302052.u5UKqdNR025451@repo.freebsd.org>, Mark Felder > > writes: > > > Author: feld > > > Date: Thu Jun 30 20:52:39 2016 > > > New Revision: 417842 > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/417842 > > > > > > Log: > > > Document openssl vulnerability > > > > > > PR: 210550 > > > Security: CVE-2016-2177 > > > > > > Modified: > > > head/security/vuxml/vuln.xml > > > > > > Modified: head/security/vuxml/vuln.xml > > > =========================================================================== > > == > > > = > > > --- head/security/vuxml/vuln.xml Thu Jun 30 20:38:36 2016 (r41784 > > > 1) > > > +++ head/security/vuxml/vuln.xml Thu Jun 30 20:52:39 2016 (r41784 > > > 2) > > > @@ -58,6 +58,38 @@ Notes: > > > * Do not forget port variants (linux-f10-libxml2, libxml2, etc.) > > > --> > > > <vuxml xmlns="http://www.vuxml.org/apps/vuxml-1">; > > > + <vuln vid="0ca24682-3f03-11e6-b3c8-14dae9d210b8"> > > > + <topic>openssl -- denial of service</topic> > > > + <affects> > > > + <package> > > > + <name>openssl</name> > > > + <range><lt>1.0.2_14</lt></range> > > > > Shouldn't this be <le>1.0.2_14</le> ? > > My mistake. The wording in the following is incorrect: > > > + <p>OpenSSL through 1.0.2h incorrectly uses pointer arithmetic > > The word "through" includes 1.0.2h, which it shouldn't. "To" excludes > 1.0.2h. Or, simply replace 1.0.2h with 1.0.2g. > Yeah, I believe OpenSSL has not cut the 1.0.2g release so this is a backported patch from their git. So their official stance is correct, but it's confusing in the context of how we triaged this in the ports tree. -- Mark Felder ports-secteam member feld@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1467322138.3172610.653592441.61683319>