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
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
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 14:36 -0800, Colin Percival 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_repl
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 instead?
>
>
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 instead?
unsigned char const * const slc_reply_
Aleksander Fafula wrote:
> Maybe not very important but is the field "FreeBSD only:" depreciated
> or not mentioned accidentally (in this and previous SA)?
We decided that since almost all FreeBSD code is shared with other
systems (most notably, DragonFlyBSD), there wasn't much point in
keeping t
Hello.
Maybe not very important but is the field "FreeBSD only:" depreciated
or not mentioned accidentally (in this and previous SA)?
Regards,
oleczek
--
Still looking for the last digit of pi...
___
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
Daniel Gerzo wrote:
> I think, this might be enought:
>
> cd /usr/src/usr.bin/telnet ; make clean && make all install
>
> but I don't exactly know, if this is really correct way how to do
> it..
With all due respect, if you don't KNOW the answer to an absolute certainty,
you shouldn't
Hey Will,
Monday, March 28, 2005, 11:24:08 PM, si napisal:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:52:14PM +, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
> [ Not sure else where to follow up to - I don't want to bug the security
> team directly about this, so just writing the list for now ]
>> b) Execute the f
Colin Percival wrote:
> Will Yardley wrote:
> >
> > Normally, the security advisories just have you rebuild the
> > program in question - wouldn't that have sufficed here?
>
> For historical reasons, the telnet build is rather messy: Depending
> upon which options you have set in /etc/make.conf,
From: Jacques Vidrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-05:01.telnet
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:00:43 -0600
> > Due to multiple telnet versions (especially in FreeBSD 4) it was
> > judged that including more specific build instructions for al
On 3/28/05 3:40 PM, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
Indeed, looks like the FreeBSD 5 patch is an "old" version since that
should have been fixed. I just CC'ed nectar so this can be fixed
ASAP.
Oops, sorry folks. I've re-uploaded the patch to the master FTP server,
and it should propagate to others soon.
On 2005.03.28 13:24:08 -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:52:14PM +, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
>
> [ Not sure else where to follow up to - I don't want to bug the security
> team directly about this, so just writing the list for now ]
In general it's fine to bug
Will Yardley wrote:
>>b) Execute the following commands as root:
>>
>># cd /usr/src
>># patch < /path/to/patch
>
> On my home machine (5.3-RELEASE) this failed - I had to go to
> /usr/src/contrib/telnet/telnet for the patch to apply.
Somehow the patch wasn't generated correctly for FreeBSD 5.x.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:52:14PM +, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
[ Not sure else where to follow up to - I don't want to bug the security
team directly about this, so just writing the list for now ]
> b) Execute the following commands as root:
>
> # cd /usr/src
> # patch < /path/to/p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=
FreeBSD-SA-05:01.telnet Security Advisory
The FreeBSD Project
Topic: t
18 matches
Mail list logo
