Does anybody know more about this "security flaw in the open-source Linux GNU C
Library"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1
--
Joseph
https://www.qualys.com/research/security-advisories/GHOST-CVE-2015-0235.txt
150127 Joseph wrote:
> Does anybody know more about this "security flaw
> in the open-source Linux GNU C Library" :
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1
Acc to this, it was patched 2013 & today threaten
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>
> I'm running 2.19-r1 , installed 140802 ; vulnerable are < 2.18 .
>
> Linux systems are at risk only when admins don't keep versions upto-date.
Unless the patch was backported, distros like debian stable are
potentially vulnerable. Gentoo sh
> Does anybody know more about this "security flaw in the open-source Linux
> GNU C Library"
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1
I updated a system of mine that was using an old version of glibc and
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 08:52:57 -0800 Grant wrote:
> > Does anybody know more about this "security flaw in the open-source Linux
> > GNU C Library"
> >
> > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1
>
>
> I update
>> > Does anybody know more about this "security flaw in the open-source Linux
>> > GNU C Library"
>> >
>> > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1
>>
>>
>> I updated a system of mine that was using an old ve
>>> > Does anybody know more about this "security flaw in the open-source Linux
>>> > GNU C Library"
>>> >
>>> > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1
>>>
>>>
>>> I updated a system of mine that was using an
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Grant wrote:
>
> glsa-check is working fine, it was a slotted issue. Still curious
> about a way to check for statically linked packages.
>
False positives in glsa data aren't unheard of - log those as bugs -
vulnerable versions should be masked, and non-vulnerab
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:53:43 -0800 Grant wrote:
> glsa-check is working fine, it was a slotted issue. Still curious
> about a way to check for statically linked packages.
There is no simple solution for this... USE flags static and
static-libs handle cases where there is a choice between static a
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:53:31 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Grant wrote:
> >
> > glsa-check is working fine, it was a slotted issue. Still curious
> > about a way to check for statically linked packages.
> >
>
> False positives in glsa data aren't unheard of - log t
Hello,
>From my understanding this is only an issue if a person is able to telnet
or ssh
to an effected system? Please confirm.
N.
Hi,
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:11:52 -0500 symack wrote:
> Hello,
>
> From my understanding this is only an issue if a person is able to telnet
> or ssh
> to an effected system? Please confirm.
Are you talking about "ghost" issue or about GLSA I mentioned above?
If about "ghost", then NO. Any applic
Hello Andrew,
Thank you for your response. For example, Exim implements reverse lookup.
How is malicious activity used against it? Do they need telnet or ssh
access,
or buy some freak of nature can exploit the vulnerability in other ways?
N
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:19:01 -0500 symack wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Thank you for your response. For example, Exim implements reverse lookup.
> How is malicious activity used against it?
Exim uses vulnerable function depending on its configuration, that's
why it may be possible to remotely execu
Just got the email in my box. Updating now
On Jan 30, 2015 12:53 PM, "Andrew Savchenko" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:19:01 -0500 symack wrote:
> > or buy some freak of nature can exploit the vulnerability in other ways?
>
> Considering how old one's setup should be to be affected to this
> issue, it is likely that such systems have a
> > Do they need telnet or ssh access,
>
> I don't understand this obsession with ssh or telnet. Remote code
> execution means that malicious party can execute any code on
> affected system.
>
To elaborate, since exim is an SMTP server it will be listening on TCP/25.
All the attacker needs to do i
On Jan 31, 2015 11:57 PM, "Adam Carter" wrote:
>
>
>> > Do they need telnet or ssh access,
>>
Not telnet shell but this could be triggered with telnet/nc or even nmap,
hping, or tcpreplay - all of which could send an arbitrary payload to tcp
or udp ports.
>> I don't understand this obsession wit
>> glsa-check is working fine, it was a slotted issue. Still curious
>> about a way to check for statically linked packages.
>
> There is no simple solution for this... USE flags static and
> static-libs handle cases where there is a choice between static and
> non-static version. In theory it is
>
> >> > Do they need telnet or ssh access,
> >>
>
> Not telnet shell but this could be triggered with telnet/nc or even nmap,
> hping, or tcpreplay - all of which could send an arbitrary payload to tcp
> or udp ports.
>
For clarity, its probably best to specify if we're talking about client or
ser
21 matches
Mail list logo
