Re: Security response: how are we doing?

2011-12-02 Thread Arne Wichmann
begin quotation from Michael Gilbert (in ): > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:11 AM, wrote: > > On the other hand, at least from my point of view, things are not looking so > > bright. I have on my watchlist 4 buffer overflows (CVE-2011-3193, > > CVE-2011-3194, CVE-2011-1071, CVE-2011-1097), one DoS (

Re: Security response: how are we doing?

2011-12-01 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:11 AM, wrote: > On the other hand, at least from my point of view, things are not looking so > bright. I have on my watchlist 4 buffer overflows (CVE-2011-3193, > CVE-2011-3194, CVE-2011-1071, CVE-2011-1097), one DoS (CVE-2011-1659) and a > number of lesser problems (#6288

Re: Security response: how are we doing?

2011-12-01 Thread aw
In article , Andrew Alderwick wrote: >Hi Carlos, > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:04AM +0100, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >>https://lwn.net/Articles/467615/ > >It's certainly worth mentioning the errata that zack has posted: >https://lwn.net/Articles/468117/ > >“Depending on how you read

Re: Security response: how are we doing?

2011-11-29 Thread Andrew Alderwick
Hi Carlos, On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:04AM +0100, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: https://lwn.net/Articles/467615/ It's certainly worth mentioning the errata that zack has posted: https://lwn.net/Articles/468117/ “Depending on how you read the above data, the ‘none’ count for Debian wou

Security response: how are we doing?

2011-11-28 Thread Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
https://lwn.net/Articles/467615/ [...] Ideally, a table like the above should have no "none" entries at all. There was no distributor without unpatched vulnerabilities, but some clearly have more than others. It is, in particular, sad to see so many missing updates in the Debian column. One could a