On 2008/01/29 09:20, Richard P. Koett wrote: > Joel Sing wrote: > > Note that that exploit is for versions earlier than 1.1.4.b3 - the > > previous ports version was 1.1.4.b4, which one would presume is > > patched for this vulnerability. Obviously this assumes that no other > > exploits have been found since version 1.1.4.b4. > > The audit I was shown stated that vulnerable versions are prior to > "1.1.4-bs". These version numbers seem to follow a pattern I don't > understand. Would I be correct in interpreting "bs" as later than > "b3p1"?
sure that's bs not b5?
