Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:53 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: > Lanny Marcus wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rob Kampen > > wrote: > > > > > >> I just killed the udevd on my two servers and await the update > >> What are you looking for? > >> > > > > Rob: Rick said the update for

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

Lanny Marcus wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: I just killed the udevd on my two servers and await the update What are you looking for? Rob: Rick said the update for udev is now available. I haven't received the email with the announcment that it is availa

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

Andrew Colin Kissa wrote: On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:39 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: John Austin wrote: On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: Lanny Marcus wrote: On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus wrote: I just saw this thread in

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: > I just killed the udevd on my two servers and await the update > What are you looking for? Rob: Rick said the update for udev is now available. I haven't received the email with the announcment that it is available so far. You are ready to

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:39 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > John Austin wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: >> >>> Lanny Marcus wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus >>> > wrote: > I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, >>>

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:31 PM, John Austin wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: >> Lanny Marcus wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus >> > wrote: >>> I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since they say it includes

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

John Austin wrote: On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: Lanny Marcus wrote: On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus wrote: I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been rele

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: > Lanny Marcus wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus > > wrote: > > > >> I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since > >> they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. > >>

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

Lanny Marcus wrote: On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus wrote: I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. Always good to keep boxes updated, for security and stability reasons.

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lanny Marcus wrote: > I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since > they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. > Always good  to keep boxes updated, for security and stability > reasons. > >

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:10 AM, D Tucny wrote: > 2009/4/19 Lanny Marcus >> I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since >> they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. >> Always good  to keep boxes updated, for security and stability >> reasons.

Re: [CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

2009/4/19 Lanny Marcus > I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since > they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. > Always good to keep boxes updated, for security and stability > reasons. > > > F

[CentOS] Local root vulnerability in udev

I just saw this thread in the OLM forum. Possibly of interest, since they say it includes CentOS 5, if the update hasn't been released yet. Always good to keep boxes updated, for security and stability reasons.