From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 28 08:31:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DF6369 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60CCF2594 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.26.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26AB43600 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 03:31:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <521DB536.4010104@marino.st> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:30:46 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cacti vulnerable? References: <521DAB7C.4000100@netfence.it> <20130828081052.GA54712@oldfaithful.bebik.local> <521DB477.7080400@peterschmitt.fr> In-Reply-To: <521DB477.7080400@peterschmitt.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:31:19 -0000 On 8/28/2013 10:27, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > Le 28/08/2013 10:10, Rodrigo OSORIO a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> Not really, according to cve, releases before 0.8.8b are affected, >> and we have 0.8.8a. >> >> - rodrigo > > And before 0.8.8b there is 0.8.8a. Or I missed something? You are agreeing with Rodrigo. He is saying the ports tree version is 0.8.8a and thus not safe, the response to the question "is the port tree version safe?" John