Daniel et al. -
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:32:19AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > I might play around with option 2. There are two strategies
> > that make technical sense:
>
> Why would you do this when there's already a version upstream that fixes
> this? I don't like the idea of having yet a
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:15:55PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> 2. Write a real fix, instead of the stupid s_popen thing.
>
> I might play around with option 2. There are two strategies
> that make technical sense:
Why would you do this when there's already a version upstream that fixes
this?
Branden Robinson asked:
> Could I get a second opinion (or more than one) from you guys as to
> whether this is actually an exploitable security problem?
I can't answer this in the affirmative, but then I only spent
about 15 minutes looking for a way to exploit it. I note that
apt-rdepends finds
3 matches
Mail list logo
