On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:56:56PM -0500, tc lewis wrote:
> the problem with simply updating to the latest rpms is the switch from
> inetd to xinetd and other misc config problems that the rpms will bring
> out. granted i can upgrade a handful of packages, and maybe that's the
Not true... Jumping revs will do that... Keeping up to date
should not. RedHat 6.2 will ALL of the security updates is still on
inetd, not xinetd.
> safest choice, but i'd still be interested in knowing if
> wu-ftpd-2.6.0-2.5.x is vulnerable to the attack or not / if that patch is
> the one that fixes 2.6.0.
Granted that RedHat's record with regard to security and
upgrades like this has been an abysmal embarrasment. But it's still
the only shot you've got. As low as it is, you can only do
worse by NOT upgrading. That will not change until people start
turning from RedHat and turning to more responsible vendors.
Unfortunately, I can't recommend any that are any better. TurboLinux
was but has not been doing a good job lately. All the others have
pluses and minues. Pick yer poison.
RedHat 7.0 was not the solution to RedHat 6.2 problems, nor
will be 7.1. RedHat wants to make technologically leaps with their
.0 release and damn the torpedos, so be it. For me, .0 means it
won't work. .1 means that it works but the security problems will
screw you. .2 means it's stable but keep up with the patches.
Don't complain about moving from a .2 to a next.0. You move
from a "keep it stable" to a "we have something new and wild in store
for you" release. If you are stable on 6.2, then keep up with the
updates and you don't have to worry about the inetd/xinetd screwover.
Problem remains... In this case, merely changing a date in
a banner makes you immune to Ramen. Doesn't mean you have fixed anything.
Means you have only ducked this bullet. Keep up to date with the rev
you have installed. Does NOT mean upgrading from 6.2 to 7.0 as soon
as it comes out. It means keeping up to date with the 6.2 updates.
Good or bad, the alternative is only worse.
> -tcl.
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 07:56:13PM -0500, tc lewis wrote:
> > > does anyone know specifically what patch to 2.6.0 takes care of this
> > > problem? i see a "wu-ftpd-2.6.0-security.patch" in the source rpms. is
> > > that the one, or is it something else?
> >
> > > the reason i'm asking is because one of my machines runs redhat 5.2 yet.
> > > i have wu-ftpd-2.6.0-2.5.x (from 5.2 updates) on there right now, which
> > > appears to include the same "wu-ftpd-2.6.0-security.patch" file as
> > > wu-ftpd-2.6.0-14.6x (from 6.2 updates) does, but not some of the others.
> >
> > 1) Update to the latest... Don't quible about this or that.
> >
> > 2) The worm is very anal about what it triggers on. It triggers
> > on the date in the ftp banner. If you are anything OTHER than the release
> > that is in 6.2 OOB or 7.0 First Edition OOB you are safe, not because you
> > can not be exploited but because this worm doesn't know what to do with
> > the date in that ftp banner. Small comfort. Next cut may include your
> > date.
> >
> > LESSON: Doesn't MATTER! Get the latest or shut it down!
> >
> > > -tcl.
> >
> > Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
