Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 19:14:59 +0200:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 06:50:51PM +0200, Markus Kolb wrote:
> >
> > Your patch does the same in fixing #315115 for Sarge.
> > In addition your patch changes a few other trivial things not in
> > rel
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 16:06:59 +0200:
>
> That being said, I failed to find the actual patch/package in the
> original mail in this thread. Could you please download the fixed
> packages as referenced in #315115, and (1) check whether they work and
> not have regressi
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:28:37 +0200:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:36:13PM +0200, Markus Kolb wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've done a fix for sudo of sarge. Code from new upstream version.
>
> Did you check the BTS? Please read
Sven Hoexter wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 20:05:47 +0200:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:45:41PM +0200, Markus Kolb wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > why security team doesn't ask for help if they have not enough time for
> > and problems with package fixing?
> >
Hi,
why security team doesn't ask for help if they have not enough time for
and problems with package fixing?
I can help.
I need only a security team member for contact and maybe a debian member
to sign my gnupg key.
Bye
Markus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Hello,
I've done a fix for sudo of sarge. Code from new upstream version.
Who is willing to check and update?
Version: 1.6.8p7-1.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Markus Kolb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Markus Kolb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
sud
On Saturday 24 May 2003 01:05, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Hi:
>
> If you're looking for Debian alpha/i386 kernel-images with all the
> recent security alerts (ptrace, ioperm, net hash) fixed, look no
> further.
[...]
Great,
thank you Herbert.
On Sunday 18 May 2003 23:02, TiM wrote:
> > How about monolithic kernels? Sure, they won't eliminate all your
> > problems,
> > but the fact of a self-made kernel being monolithic adds another
> > layer of security to your context.
> >
> > If your machines are servers in a production environment, t
On Sunday 18 May 2003 15:03, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Markus Kolb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > where can I get information which patches I need for a secure, not
> > exploitable 2.4.20 vanilla kernel?
>
> What do you mean by "not exploitable"? What are
Hello,
where can I get information which patches I need for a secure, not
exploitable 2.4.20 vanilla kernel?
Is there a possibility without reading the kernel developer mailinglist?
Thx
On Wednesday 07 May 2003 14:53, Peter Holm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> may I be allowed to ask some questions?
>
> I am a little bit confused about the latest discussions on the ptrace
> kernel bug.
[...]
> Why isn´t there a security warning about that ptrace bug?
[...]
Well the most problem is that Marcelo
Brian McGroarty wrote:
This sure seems kind of silly... why add all these things into Big
Giant Namespace and not honor all of the conventions of the same? I
think /proc/* not supporting chmod changes for the duration of a
system's uptime could be classified as a bug or a major design
flaw. :/
Maurizio Lemmo - Tannoiser wrote:
On sabato 12 aprile 2003, alle 16:48, Markus Kolb wrote:
Nono, that's not what I'm asking... My question is, literally, _why_
doesn't woody have such a patch? (I applied it on my systems, I'm just
wondering why there isn't an official
Birzan George Cristian wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 10:52:47AM +0200, Maurizio Lemmo - Tannoiser wrote:
On sabato 12 aprile 2003, alle 06:45, Birzan George Cristian wrote:
This might be a stupid question, I know, but, why isn't there a patch
for the ptrace exploit, for the Woody kernel-sour
Jon wrote:
[...]
Linux kmod + ptrace local root exploit by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=> Simple mode, executing /usr/bin/id > /dev/tty
sizeof(shellcode)=95
=> Child process started..
=> Child process started..
[...]
Does this mean the patch I downloaded worked?
Yes.
- Jon
M
Jon wrote:
[...]
Linux kmod + ptrace local root exploit by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=> Simple mode, executing /usr/bin/id > /dev/tty
sizeof(shellcode)=95
=> Child process started..
=> Child process started..
[...]
Does this mean the patch I downloaded worked?
Yes.
- Jon
Mmh, well,
- Original Message -
From: "Preben Randhol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Laurent Luyckx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Nemesis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Exim Relay
> Laurent Luyckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/02/2002 (16:30) :
> > In exim.co
- Original Message -
From: "Preben Randhol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Laurent Luyckx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Nemesis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Exim Relay
> Laurent Luyckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/02/2002 (16:
18 matches
Mail list logo
