On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Roberto wrote:
Steve Kiernan wrote:
I was looking at this patch, but there seems to be an error in it:
unsigned char slc_reply[128];
+unsigned char const * const slc_reply_eom =
&slc_reply[sizeof(slc_reply)];
unsigned char *slc_replyp;
Should the value for slc_reply_eom not be
Hello Everyone,
The branches supported by the FreeBSD Security Officer have been
updated to reflect recent EoL (end-of-life) events. The new list is
below and at http://www.freebsd.org/security/ >. FreeBSD 4.8
has `expired' and is no longer supported effective April 1, 2005. Also
note that Free
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:29:48AM +0200, Roberto wrote:
> Actually I've not read the code,
Then why are you posting your opinion about it? (^_^)
I guess I'm responding to your post only to prevent others from worrying
about a non-existent ``problem''.
> but from these email it seems to me tha
> Steve Kiernan wrote:
>> I was looking at this patch, but there seems to be an error in it:
>>
>> unsigned char slc_reply[128];
>> +unsigned char const * const slc_reply_eom =
>> &slc_reply[sizeof(slc_reply)];
>> unsigned char *slc_replyp;
>>
>> Should the value for slc_reply_eom not be this in
Hello!
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:39:30 +0200
From: Daniel Gerzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just curious... why is it necessary to rebuild the whole operating
system? Normally, the security advisories just have you rebuild the
program in question - wouldn't that have sufficed here?
I think, this
