> On 27.01.2015, at 22:03, Michael Grimm <trash...@odo.in-berlin.de> wrote: > > This mail: >> FreeBSD-SA-15:02.kmem Security Advisory > > Other Mail: > | FreeBSD-SA-15:03.sctp Security > Advisory > >> 3) To update your vulnerable system via a source code patch: >> >> The following patches have been verified to apply to the applicable >> FreeBSD release branches. >> >> a) Download the relevant patch from the location below, and verify the >> detached PGP signature using your PGP utility. >> > > This mail: >> # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch >> # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch.asc > > The other mail: > | # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch > | # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch.asc
Grrr: | # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:03/sctp.patch | # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:03/sctp.patch.asc > > Well, experienced admins will notice that both patches are distinct, > won't overwrite the first patch file downloaded with the second one, > and won't start compiling the kernel missing the first patch. > > But, I do have the feeling that this naming scheme is error prone. > > Just my 2 cents and with kind regards, > Michael _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
