jnbut...@jnbutler.com wrote:
[...]
> Wish me luck!
Good luck!
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myse
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, at 02:52 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
[...]
>>>
>>> I was hoping to get more information about how to evaluate my exposure.
>> Look at the source of the patch. The header says that the changes are from
>> upstream. They will b
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
>> I was hoping to get more information about how to evaluate my exposure.
>
> Look at the source of the patch. The header says that the changes are from
> upstream. They will be in future versions of the code. To evaluate the
> vulnerability,
Thanks all for the suggestions.
I went back and re-compiled ncurses making sure it went without error
then re-compiled util-linux-ng-2.14.1 and this time it looks like it
went ok, no errors. Did the stripping and backed up tools/ dir.
Changed owner to root and now ready for building LFS.
Wish me l
jnbut...@jnbutler.com wrote:
> I searched the FAQ, Errata, and the mailing list but did not find
> anything about this error I'm getting while compiling
> util-linux-ng-2.14.1. Everything else up to this point configured
> and compiled successfully. Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
> My sy
On Mon, Apr 27, at 10:58 jnbut...@jnbutler.com wrote:
> more.c:175:52: error: term.h: No such file or directory
This is a ncurses header, actually is an awk script (MKterm.h.awk.in).
Make sure that you have installed ncurses properly and recheck.
> James Butler
Regards,
Agathoklis.
--
http:
On Monday 27 April 2009 16:58:24 jnbut...@jnbutler.com wrote:
> I searched the FAQ, Errata, and the mailing list but did not find
> anything about this error I'm getting while compiling
> util-linux-ng-2.14.1. Everything else up to this point configured
> and compiled successfully. Thanks for any h
Sorry for posting without a subject line! Here is one with the subject line.
From:
Date: 4/27/09 22:54Subject:
I searched the FAQ, Errata, and the mailing list but did not find
anything about this error I'm getting while compiling
util-linux-ng-2.14.1. Everything else up to this poin
I searched the FAQ, Errata, and the mailing list but did not find
anything about this error I'm getting while compiling
util-linux-ng-2.14.1. Everything else up to this point configured
and compiled successfully. Thanks for any help you can provide.
My system is Fedora 10 Linux 2.6.27.21-170.2.56.
On Mon, Apr 27, at 02:52 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> > Well, you see there are two exposures involved, the obvious one
> >
> > possible exploit of known vulnerability
> >
> > and the less obvious one
> >
> > replacing working code with with defective code
> >
> > The f
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:28:39PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Well, you see there are two exposures involved, the obvious one
>
> possible exploit of known vulnerability
>
> and the less obvious one
>
> replacing working code with with defective code
>
> The first exposure is r
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Well, you see there are two exposures involved, the obvious one
>
> possible exploit of known vulnerability
>
> and the less obvious one
>
> replacing working code with with defective code
>
> The first exposure is relatively easy to evaluate; the latter is le
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> I am not expert, so I perhaps am not able to see how the vulnerabilities
>> listed affect my machine. Could you be more specific about how the
>> vulnerabilities are subject to exploit? I'd appreciate that very much.
>> IOW, I'
Ken Moffat wrote:
Thanks for your kind reply.
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:53:41PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
>> I am not expert, so I perhaps am not able to see how the vulnerabilities
>> listed affect my machine. Could you be more specific about how the
>> vulnerabilities are subject to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:53:41PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
> > All users who run udev are recommended to upgrade and reboot.
>
> Why? What I see there shows two vulnerabilities indeed, but perhaps
> not for everyone. ISTM that they require a hostile local user, or at
> least one with a ru
Mike McCarty wrote:
> I am not expert, so I perhaps am not able to see how the vulnerabilities
> listed affect my machine. Could you be more specific about how the
> vulnerabilities are subject to exploit? I'd appreciate that very much.
> IOW, I'd like to see something which would allow us to eval
Ken Moffat wrote:
[...]
> There are two vulnerabilities in versions of udev before udev-141.
Thanks very much for the heads up.
> (i.) For all previous versions, netlink messages can be received
> from local users, allowing privilege escalation. CVE-2009-1185
>
> (ii.) There is a potential b
I'm posting this to the lfs-dev and {,b}lfs-support lists. If
you wish to reply, please just reply to the list (NOT "to all" -
that might cause rejections if you aren't subscribed to all the
lists).
There are two vulnerabilities in versions of udev before udev-141.
(i.) For all previous versio
18 matches
Mail list logo
