Doesn't base also need to be patched?
AFAIK pkg uses sqlite database.
--
_
/ Drew's Law of Highway Biology: \
| |
| The first bug to hit a clean windshield |
| |
\ l
> You mean like net/tcpdump398, which was forked from net/tcpdump because
> some people liked its output format better than that of tcpdump 4, and
> then forgotten, and is known to have dozens of security vulnerabilities?
We shouldn't forbid people to shoot themselves in their heads. If someone ne
I believe FreeBSD should just have a slave port with OpenSSH 7.4, used only for
SSHv1. People using such port should know the consequences of it.
Debian does it too with https://packages.debian.org/stretch/openssh-client-ssh1
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-May/72.html
___
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
AFAIK FreeBSD project tries to ship basic tools in pretty much every
area (eg. DNS resolver etc.) that works for 99% of users and if anyone
needs something more advanced, they are welcome to use ports.
That it exactly why BIND was replaced with Unbound and LDNS tools. Why
not go the same way with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Shawn Webb has recently announced that ASLR is complete on HardenedBSD.
There are patches ready for FreeBSD to use and it's ready to be shipped
in FreeBSD. However, for some reason FreeBSD developers do not want to
ship ASLR in FreeBSD. Why can't it
Are there any plans to use LibreSSL in base (at least as an experimental
feature, available when compiling with e.g. WITH_LIBRESSL in src.conf)?
If not, is 11.0-RELEASE going to have OpenSSL 1.0.2?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
I wrote about this vulnerability in January:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2015-January/008115.html
There were only patches for stable.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
See http://mx.gw.com/pipermail/file/2014/001653.html and
http://mx.gw.com/pipermail/file/2014/001654.html for reports.
They're fixed in
https://github.com/file/file/commit/ce90e05774dd77d86cfc8dfa6da57b32816841c4
and
https://github.com/file/file/commit/65437cee25199dbd385fb35901bc0011e164276c
_
That wasn't necessary, as I already mailed both re@ and so@ :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 08/31/2014 17:07, Hassane HYJAZI wrote:
> security/openssl version : 1.0.1_15 ~= 1.01i (+2patch) fixing all of this.
> check commit history at http://www.freshports.org/security/openssl
>
>
>
> Le 30/08/2014 19:47, Piotr Kubaj a écrit :
>> Hello. According to http
:47 AM, Piotr Kubaj
>wrote:
>> Hello. According to https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20140806.txt
>> there's been a known SA in OpenSSL for 24 days. Since then
>> security/openssl has been updated and there have been updates to head
>> and stable{8,9,10} but ther
Hello. According to https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20140806.txt
there's been a known SA in OpenSSL for 24 days. Since then
security/openssl has been updated and there have been updates to head
and stable{8,9,10} but there hasn't been any FreeBSD SA. Is it that so@
has somehow forgotten about i
13 matches
Mail list logo
