From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Sep 23 16:41:33 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F6BA0671C for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:41:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE20122F for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:41:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t8NGfXZo005130 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:41:33 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 203227] vuln.xml incorrectly flagging ruby20 as insecure Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:41:33 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Ports Framework X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: terry@tmk.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ports-secteam@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:41:33 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203227 --- Comment #10 from terry@tmk.com --- Other than some unneeded checks (ruby20 should always refer to 2.0, ruby22 should always refer to 2.2 - it is only ruby (no suffix) that can refer to multiple versions) that type of solution seems fine. However, with the entry updated as you show above, it is still complaining that ruby-2.0.0.647,1 is vulnerable. If it helps, I can give you access to a system where this is happening and chown the vuln.xml file so you can modify it to help track down the issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.