Re: Bind vulnerability
From: Wes Peters (wes@softweyr.com)
Date: 02/23/01
- Next message: slamdunk: "weird login attempt"
- Previous message: Kris Kennaway: "Re: RIPEMD-160"
- In reply to: Peter Pentchev: "Re: Bind vulnerability"
- Next in thread: Chris Faulhaber: "Re: Bind vulnerability"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:23:52 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg>
Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:22:03AM -0600, George.Giles@mcmail.vanderbilt.edu wrote:
> > The bind vulnerability has been fixed in 4.2-current ?
>
> There is no such thing as 4.2-current.
4.2 is a place, -CURRENT is a direction.
The latest (several) bind vulnerability(s) existed in 4.2, but have been
fixed in -CURRENT (only for system developers, quite scary and unstable)
and -STABLE (useful for real work).
> The BIND vulnerability has been fixed in 4.2-STABLE, yes.
Technically, -STABLE is a direction also. But the bind vulnerability(s)
are fixed in -STABLE. Read the handbook about using cvsup.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: slamdunk: "weird login attempt"
- Previous message: Kris Kennaway: "Re: RIPEMD-160"
- In reply to: Peter Pentchev: "Re: Bind vulnerability"
- Next in thread: Chris Faulhaber: "Re: Bind vulnerability"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading