Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:30.unbound

2014-12-18 Thread Matt Donovan
On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Zoran Kolic wrote: > > This is weird as I now get a thing that "Directory's required to be > removed ..." and that directory is "/" will this be fixed as this is kinda > scary seeing "Directory couldn't be removed "rmdir /" or something it > showed. > > I had a

Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:30.unbound

2014-12-18 Thread Zoran Kolic
> This is weird as I now get a thing that "Directory's required to be removed > ..." and that directory is "/" will this be fixed as this is kinda scary > seeing "Directory couldn't be removed "rmdir /" or something it showed. I had a problem using freebsd-update to 9.3-p6. I had to use it t

Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:30.unbound

2014-12-18 Thread Steven Hartland
Nope unbound was the replacement for bind in 10.x+ On 18/12/2014 16:13, Zoran Kolic wrote: The first part of that statement is false. The dns/unbound port was fixed for CVE-2014-8602 on 9 December. Thus a valid work around is to disable local_unbound and use ports/dns/unbound. To ask explicit

Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:30.unbound

2014-12-18 Thread chris
This is weird as I now get a thing that "Directory's required to be removed ..." and that directory is "/" will this be fixed as this is kinda scary seeing "Directory couldn't be removed "rmdir /" or something it showed. On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:13:07 -0600 zko...@sbb.rs wrote > Th

Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:30.unbound

2014-12-18 Thread Zoran Kolic
> The first part of that statement is false. The dns/unbound port was > fixed for CVE-2014-8602 on 9 December. Thus a valid work around is to > disable local_unbound and use ports/dns/unbound. To ask explicitelly: this does not affect 9.3? I see no unbound nor local_unbound on stock install. B