Hi there,
we've been in touch with the upstream developers and I want to add the
following to the discussion:
After reading through the code thoroughly, I want to add the
clarification, that the summary of the CVE is not really correct:
Every encrypted library uses the same salt. (That will be f
Control: severity -1 important
Control: tags -1 - buster-ignore
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:16:46AM +0100, Christoph Martin wrote:
> Hi Salvatore,
>
> Am 06.03.19 um 23:15 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> > Hi Christoph,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:12:31PM +0100, Christoph Ma
Hi Salvatore,
Am 06.03.19 um 23:15 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:12:31PM +0100, Christoph Martin wrote:
>
> Yes I think we can agree on that!
>
So, I'd like to lower the severity to important,
> Quick note on the buster-ignore tag addition, keep
Hi Christoph,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:12:31PM +0100, Christoph Martin wrote:
> Control: tags -1 buster-ignore
>
> Am 22.02.19 um 23:46 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> > Source: seafile
> > Version: 6.2.11-1
> > Severity: grave
> > Tags: security upstream
> > Forwarded: https://github.com/haiwe
Control: tags -1 buster-ignore
Am 22.02.19 um 23:46 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> Source: seafile
> Version: 6.2.11-1
> Severity: grave
> Tags: security upstream
> Forwarded: https://github.com/haiwen/seafile/issues/350
>
> Hi,
>
> The following vulnerability was published for seafile.
>
> CV
Source: seafile
Version: 6.2.11-1
Severity: grave
Tags: security upstream
Forwarded: https://github.com/haiwen/seafile/issues/350
Hi,
The following vulnerability was published for seafile.
CVE-2013-7469[0]:
| Seafile through 6.2.11 always uses the same Initialization Vector (IV)
| with Cipher Bl
6 matches
Mail list logo
