Re: mail/metamail CVE-2006-0709

2016-03-19 Thread Michael McConville
Joerg Jung wrote: > > Our port is probably still vulnerable to CVE-2006-0709: > > > > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2006-0709 > > > > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0217.html > > > > There are two patches included in the Debian tickets and I can't tell > > which was ap

Re: mail/metamail CVE-2006-0709

2016-03-18 Thread Joerg Jung
> Am 18.03.2016 um 18:26 schrieb Michael McConville : > > Our port is probably still vulnerable to CVE-2006-0709: > > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2006-0709 > > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0217.html > > There are two patches included in the Debian tickets and I c

mail/metamail CVE-2006-0709

2016-03-18 Thread Michael McConville
Our port is probably still vulnerable to CVE-2006-0709: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2006-0709 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0217.html There are two patches included in the Debian tickets and I can't tell which was applied. They removed the port in 2009, so it's hard