On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:09:22PM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Moritz Muehlenhoff (j...@debian.org):
> > Package: smbfs
> > Severity: grave
> > Tags: security
> >
> > This is CVE-2009-3297:
> > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6853
> >
> > /usr/share/doc/smbfs/TODO.Debian
Quoting Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org):
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 13:09:22 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>
> > My concern here is that it would definitely be a regression for users
> > who rely on user mounting of CIFS volumes.
> >
> Doesn't fusesmb replace that?
Sure. There are very cer
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 13:09:22 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> My concern here is that it would definitely be a regression for users
> who rely on user mounting of CIFS volumes.
>
Doesn't fusesmb replace that?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian
Quoting Moritz Muehlenhoff (j...@debian.org):
> Package: smbfs
> Severity: grave
> Tags: security
>
> This is CVE-2009-3297:
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6853
>
> /usr/share/doc/smbfs/TODO.Debian states:
> There is concern about the setuid status of binaries in this package.
>
Package: smbfs
Severity: grave
Tags: security
This is CVE-2009-3297:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6853
/usr/share/doc/smbfs/TODO.Debian states:
There is concern about the setuid status of binaries in this package.
The audit status of the concerned binaries is unclear. We should
5 matches
Mail list logo
