Re: EoL dates

From: Kris Kennaway (kris_at_obsecurity.org)
Date: 08/24/03

  • Next message: horio shoichi: "Re: weird problem with chkrootkit and checksums" 
    Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:57 -0700
To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>

    On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:38:49AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
    > At 10:14 24/08/2003 -0700, I wrote:
    > > Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. There are
    > >five release branches now which are "not officially supported", but I
    > >have yet to see any circumstance where they have, in fact, not been
    > >supported. If those branches were not being supported because people
    > >were too busy to support them, I'd understand perfectly; but as far as I
    > >can see, those branches *are* being supported.
    >
    > Oops. As hawkeyd@visi.com has just pointed out to me, I didn't look far
    > enough; SA-03:01, :02, :03, :05, and :06 didn't have official patches for
    > the unsupported branches.

    Yep. In many cases the security team will go "beyond the call of
    duty" to fix problems in non-supported releases, but it comes down to
    factors like how significant the hole is, how easy the patch is to
    backport and how motivated security-officer is to fix it for
    non-supported releases.

    Kris

  • Next message: horio shoichi: "Re: weird problem with chkrootkit and checksums"