From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 12 10:22:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D77D16A4CE; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:22:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5371443D48; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:22:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru) Received: from pobrecita.freebsd.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i7CAKpab092976; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:20:51 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by pobrecita.freebsd.ru (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i7CAKpcm092975; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:20:51 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:20:51 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-ID: <20040812102051.GA92918@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , Oliver Eikemeier , ports@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20040812094655.GB89851@nagual.pp.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.1-beta; AVE 6.27.0.4; VDF 6.27.0.7 (host: pobrecita.freebsd.ru) cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: False vuxml alarms (ImageMagick) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:22:22 -0000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 12:10:57PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > The vulnerability database is open for every committer to commit to. But > before changing the entry: what makes you believe version 6.0.2.7 is not > vulnerable? http://www.imagemagick.org/www/Changelog.html seems to be a > good indicator that it is... Do you mean vuln.xml corresponding entry (ImageMagick) should be removed? I mean this part printed, it is wrong: >>>>>libpng stack-based buffer overflow and other code concerns. >>> Reference: >>>>>html> because libpng is already fixed. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/