Hi again,
On 31 July 2013 17:43, Chris Boot wrote:
> This patch isn't part of 2.7.18-5, which is currently in wheezy. We've
> had to roll our own update internally that includes the patch in order
> to correctly process reports from other servers.
Are you sure that this issue wasn't already pres
Hi Stig, Chris,
Stig: Have you been able to check the report?
I haven't taken a proper look at it, but I think there's at least one
extra field that doesn't correspond to the format version.
On 31 July 2013 17:43, Chris Boot wrote:
> On 25/06/13 17:36, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> On 21 June 2013
On 25/06/13 17:36, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On 21 June 2013 17:07, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> As promised via IRC, attached patch is a version that actually works.
>
> And now a patch to be applied on top of it to restore the
> compatibility of the reports.
This patch isn't part of 2.7.18-5, wh
On 21 June 2013 17:07, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> As promised via IRC, attached patch is a version that actually works.
And now a patch to be applied on top of it to restore the
compatibility of the reports.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
CVE-2013
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 04:42:11PM +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 12:21, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Attached patch is an untested backport.
>
> Less broken version attached, but there are still a couple of bugs left.
Wonderful, thanks. I'll review and test, and see what else
Hi,
Upstream provided me with the following gist against 2.6.18 that fixes
this vulnerability:
https://gist.github.com/stahnma/d7598b49a4abc07845b9
Haven't checked how much backporting is needed.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
6 matches
Mail list logo
