Bug#432008: flac123: CVE-2007-3507: stack-based buffer overflow

Package: flac123 Version: 0.0.9-5 Severity: grave Tags: security patch -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 CVE-2007-3507 [0]: "Stack-based buffer overflow in the local__vcentry_parse_value function in vorbiscomment.c in flac123 (aka flac-tools or flac) before 0.0.10 allows user-assiste

Bug#373672: libjpeg-mmx: CVE-2006-3005: memory exhaustion

Moritz Muehlenhoff on 2006-06-15 12:10:15 +0200: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:53:45PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote: > > > Although the CVE is Gentoo-specific, Debian's libjpeg-mmx is not built > > with --maxmem enabled, making it vulnerable. I have attached a trivial >

Bug#373672: libjpeg-mmx: CVE-2006-3005: memory exhaustion

Package: libjpeg-mmx Severity: important Tags: security patch -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 CVE-2006-3005: "The JPEG library in media-libs/jpeg before 6b-r7 on Gentoo Linux is built without the -maxmem feature, which could allow context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of ser

Bug#269668: [zapyon@gmx.net: Re: Bug#269668: rdiff-backup crashes trying to backup to NFS directory]

- Forwarded message from Andreas Neudecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:12:41 +0200 From: Andreas Neudecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#269668: rdiff-backup crashes trying to backup to NFS director

Bug#269668: rdiff-backup crashes trying to backup to NFS directory

begin quotation of Steve Langasek on 2004-09-15 18:19:14 -0700: > If this bug is unreproducible, should it also be downgraded? I had planned on giving him two weeks from the date (Sept. 4) I last sent the bunch of questions I hoped would help, but he hasn't replied and I don't see any pressing r

Bug#269876: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Using --compare-at-time?]

- Forwarded message from David Kempe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 07:55:38 +1000 From: David Kempe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Andrew Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Using --compare-at-time? Andrew Parker wrote: >H

Bug#269668: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More information]

Andreas - this one seems to not have gone through (delivery failed on my side), so I'm trying again. - Forwarded message from Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:49:52 -0400 From: Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:

Bug#269668: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More information]

(forgot to CC bug report) - Forwarded message from Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:49:52 -0400 From: Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: More information User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Hi Andreas, Thanks for rep

Bug#206252: Confirmed in 13.4-3

Confirmed that this link bug is still present in 13.4-3. The funny thing is, the test is done with .isdir() (Main.py:312), which should return true if the symlink points to a directory. I'll have to look into this further. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#253057: More information

begin quotation of Marc Haber on 2004-08-30 10:35:08 +0200: > Hi, > > sorry for not answering earlier; your questions were only sent to the > bug which doesn't forward by default to the submitter. I apologize; my oversight. > I will try to reproduce this in the next days and will answer the >

Bug#265968: acknowledged by developer (Inproper command?)

begin quotation of Kingsley G. Morse Jr. on 2004-08-16 15:21:11 -0700: > Perhaps rdiff-backup should emit a more descriptive error message. It could on a number of points, not just on this particular one. I'll look in to adding more descriptive error messages. signature.asc Description: Digit

Bug#253057: More information

Hi Marc, Thanks for reporting. Two questions for you. First, have the timestamps or permissions on these files changed? I don't think they would in the course of normal system usage, but we may as well cover all our bases. Secondly, is there anything interesting about the increment diff files?