David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/28/11 10:08 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
David E. Ross schrieb:
That page should distinguish between SM 2.6 and SM 2.6.1. Otherwise,
some users will mistakenly think that security flaws actually fixed
between the two were instead already fixed in 2.6.
2.6 and 2.6.1 are
On 12/28/11 10:08 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> David E. Ross schrieb:
>> That page should distinguish between SM 2.6 and SM 2.6.1. Otherwise,
>> some users will mistakenly think that security flaws actually fixed
>> between the two were instead already fixed in 2.6.
>
> 2.6 and 2.6.1 are the same s
David E. Ross schrieb:
That page should distinguish between SM 2.6 and SM 2.6.1. Otherwise,
some users will mistakenly think that security flaws actually fixed
between the two were instead already fixed in 2.6.
2.6 and 2.6.1 are the same security-wise, no need to distinguish anything.
Robert
On 12/28/11 6:19 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 27/12/11 04:09, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>> In their 12/22/2011 security bulletin,
>> @RISK: The Consensus Security Vulnerability Alert Week 52 2011
>> SANS reports the following vulnerabilities in Mozilla FF & TB releases.
>> Since SM code is so cl
On 27/12/11 04:09, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
In their 12/22/2011 security bulletin,
@RISK: The Consensus Security Vulnerability Alert Week 52 2011
SANS reports the following vulnerabilities in Mozilla FF & TB releases.
Since SM code is so closely related to the Moz. FF & TB codes,
which, if any,
In their 12/22/2011 security bulletin,
@RISK: The Consensus Security Vulnerability Alert Week 52 2011
SANS reports the following vulnerabilities in Mozilla FF & TB releases.
Since SM code is so closely related to the Moz. FF & TB codes,
which, if any, of these vulnerabilities are present in SM 2.6
6 matches
Mail list logo