Bug#933743: LibXSLT in Debian stable has three unpatched security vulnerabilities

2019-08-02 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Package: libxslt1.1 Version: 1.1.32-2 Severity: grave The upstream version of LibXSLT shipped in Debian stable (1.1.32) has the following three CVEs reported against it: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11068 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-13117 https://nvd.nist.go

Bug#933743: LibXSLT in Debian stable has three unpatched security vulnerabilities

2019-08-03 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Hi Salvatore, On Sat, 2019 Aug 3 09:32-04:00, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > As you can see from the security-tracker btw, for all three there are > bugs filled already. So why a new bug for all three together? :) The earliest CVE is nearly four months old, and patches already exist. I filed th

Bug#933743: LibXSLT in Debian stable has three unpatched security vulnerabilities

2019-08-04 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Sun, 2019 Aug 4 03:20-04:00, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Sure it might have been overlooked, but pinging the existing bug would > have been less overhead to now as well start tracking this one as well > adjusting metadata etc. But no worries. Just so that I understand, there was an existin

Bug#933743: LibXSLT in Debian stable has three unpatched security vulnerabilities

2019-08-06 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Tue, 2019 Aug 6 15:20-04:00, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > No I was refering to the bugs filled in the BTS, they were #926895, > #931321 and #931320. We then cross reference those to/from the > security-tracker as well. I added your bug as well later on. I think what may have happened was t

Bug#587570: New, non-broken squeeze images are needed

2010-06-29 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Package: debian-installer Version: 20100211 Severity: grave The installers are currently broken due to bug 583551, which prevents mkfs.ext3 et al. from working. New images are needed, per tytso in this message: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=583551#117 Please ensure that th

Bug#583551:

2010-06-29 Thread Daniel Richard G.
> Probably would be useful to open a bug against the debian-installer to > get them to update their images? The relevant versions of e2fsprogs > are now (finally!) migrated into testing... Bug #587570. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsu

Bug#587570: Appears to be fixed in early-July squeeze images

2010-07-14 Thread Daniel Richard G.
A new set of squeeze debian-installer images has appeared in the repositories (dated July 6 for i386, July 10 for amd64), and with these, the entire installation process functions flawlessly. Bug #587570, I believe, can be closed. (I can't speak for bug #588183.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de

Bug#726661: Does not permit login as root from version 1:6.2p2-6

2014-04-25 Thread Daniel Richard G.
failures; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=10.0.2.2 user=root Anyway, the change comes from Debian bug #298138, which lay dormant for over nine years before being wrapped up this past March. --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad ca

Bug#584162: ssmtp: Partial loss of message body, sending message to wrong recipicients

2014-06-19 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Well, sSMTP is my dumb forwarder of choice, and as the original reporter appears to have moved on, and sSMTP has been dropped from testing due to this bug, and no one else seems to care, it looks like I'll have to step in. Attached is a patch against the original 2.64 source that should address th

Bug#726661: Does not permit login as root from version 1:6.2p2-6

2014-09-27 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Sat, 2014 Sep 27 15:40+0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > So am I right to conclude that this bug actually concerns the change > that changes PermitRootLogin to without-password? I believe that's the real issue, yes. > I think changing this default makes sense from a security perspective > as it

Bug#358696: This is dangerous, please make it default to disabled

2006-07-28 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Fri, 2006 Jul 28 14:46:47 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > 1. The UPS may take more than 15 minutes to shutdown the load. You cannot > assume things like this, and you will cause data loss if you get it wrong: > the power-off could come with the system fully online. The time peri

Bug#358696: This is dangerous, please make it default to disabled

2006-07-28 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Fri, 2006 Jul 28 16:12:35 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > There is no tradeoff without the hack, and the hack is only needed in > hardware unsuitable for UPS management. Thus, it must be optional. It is > dangerous to data and the hardware, so it should not be the default. Defi

Bug#358696: This is dangerous, please make it default to disabled

2006-07-31 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Mon, 2006 Jul 31 13:47:21 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > Define "(un)suitable for UPS management." Does this definition include > > most people's desktop systems? > > Suitable for UPS management: > Load: > Powers up when AC returns > Can be

Bug#394948: gbdfed is unusable on amd64

2006-10-23 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Package: gbdfed Version: 1.1-2 Severity: grave I am running a Debian/etch system on amd64. The program will map a window, and can even load a BDF font. As soon as I attempt to edit a character, however, or read the online help---crash! I am seeing not only segfaults, but also glibc complaints o

Bug#394948: Current status of bug #394948

2006-10-24 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Baruch, your debug-fu is impressive. I usually resort to Valgrind in cases like these, and couldn't make heads nor tails of the logs; they were all over the place. Mark's 1.2 code is working beautifully for me, and so should the updated .deb package. (I don't suppose that could be expedited int