On 30/11/01, David Ehle wrote:
> Is the wu-ftpd in testing secure? It seems to be 2.6.1 a stinker.
Not so far. But calling a software where the source and the fix are
available, so that you can build a fixed version on your own is
inappropriate. Especially if you are using Win98 and Netscape, both
On 30/11/01, David Ehle wrote:
> Is the wu-ftpd in testing secure? It seems to be 2.6.1 a stinker.
Not so far. But calling a software where the source and the fix are
available, so that you can build a fixed version on your own is
inappropriate. Especially if you are using Win98 and Netscape, bot
Thanks Curtis,
I know the maintainer has put together a fixed version for
Potato/stable, I am wondering if he has had time to do the testing yet,
or if we rollback to the testing one or what. I'm just hoping that
rollback won't be a dependency nightmare... the stable version is
wu-ftpd_2.6.0-6
The article I read about it on the Register...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23082.html
"The hole affects thousands of users of virtually
every Linux release.
Because of the wide implications, Core, working with
CERT, and, at
on
Thanks Curtis,
I know the maintainer has put together a fixed version for
Potato/stable, I am wondering if he has had time to do the testing yet,
or if we rollback to the testing one or what. I'm just hoping that
rollback won't be a dependency nightmare... the stable version is
wu-ftpd_2.6.0-
The article I read about it on the Register...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23082.html
"The hole affects thousands of users of virtually
every Linux release.
Because of the wide implications, Core, working with
CERT, and, at
on
6 matches
Mail list logo
