* Gregory Colpart:
> You saw probably the answer of Nico Golde but I give you more
> details here: a patch[*] for this issue was applied in imp4
> 4.1.3-4 (version currently in etch). This patch is a backport of
> upstream security changes.
FWIW, I've updated the track to reflect this. In such c
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:01:07PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, September 24, 2007 09:42, Gregory Colpart wrote:
> > I report that imp4/etch is *not* vulnerable for
> > CVE-2007-1515 (corrected in #415117). I add CVE-id to imp4's
> > changelog in our GNU Arch repository but I mention it
Hi,
* Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-24 11:26]:
> I report that imp4/etch is *not* vulnerable for
> CVE-2007-1515 (corrected in #415117). I add CVE-id to imp4's
> changelog in our GNU Arch repository but I mention it here
> because no upload is expected in next weeks.
Thanks, marked
On Mon, September 24, 2007 09:42, Gregory Colpart wrote:
> I report that imp4/etch is *not* vulnerable for
> CVE-2007-1515 (corrected in #415117). I add CVE-id to imp4's
> changelog in our GNU Arch repository but I mention it here because no
> upload is expected in next weeks.
Thanks for letting u
(Please Cc: me, I'm not subscribed)
Hello,
I report that imp4/etch is *not* vulnerable for
CVE-2007-1515 (corrected in #415117). I add CVE-id to imp4's
changelog in our GNU Arch repository but I mention it here
because no upload is expected in next weeks.
Regards,
--
Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PR
5 matches
Mail list logo