you're still not adressing my question, so i'm assuming you don't know,
and that's fine. i'm not really looking for recommendations. i'm looking
for an answer as to whether that's the patch to prevent this vulnerability
or not. i'm not concerned with the worm's date/banner checking thing, i'm
concerned about the vulnerability itself. i'm fully aware of general
upgrade vs non-upgrade issues and redhat's issues overall. heh.
not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to get the info about that
patch vs the vulnerability.
-tcl.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
