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> In-Reply-To: <ab68d1d4-5ba3-3e94-b381-3b6d86516796@quip.cz> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* [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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210411194932.t4a6dtjdvhynj2uf>