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 (
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
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/
>
>âDepending on how you read
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo