--82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:37:10PM +0300, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
> As I read in this SA, this vulnerability was fixed on 2004-05-20, before
> 4.10 was released, so 4.10-RELEASE isn't vulnerable, right? But portaudit
Yes, 4.10 is not vulnerable.
> still complains about FreeBSD-491000. Probably, wrong check in auditfile?
> Also, it would be nice if such an advisories advance kern.osreldate,
> so auditfile could check this automatically; e.g., I have 4.9-RELEASE-p11=
,=20
> which isn't vulnerable to this problem, but kern.osreldate is still 49000=
0=20
> there. If Security Officer bumps src/sys/conf/newvers.sh, why he doesn't=
=20
> bump src/sys/sys/param.h?
I think it is not applicable to bump param.h, as it represents an ABI chang=
e,
which a security update should not introduce. (just my $0.02 :-)
Cheers,
--=20
Xin LI <delphij frontfree net> http://www.delphij.net/
See complete headers for GPG key and other information.
--82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)
iD4DBQFBRv2sOfuToMruuMARApKXAJ9B3PCDTo2y3atGWdmZVZwC8PVvhgCVHxxn
9INVyv8mozpV04jh1wpRMg==
=WMHi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs--