From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 15 13:40:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55E2564 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:40:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@tern.ru) Received: from ns.tern.ru (ns.tern.ru [89.175.165.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CC3A6 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tern.ru (mail.tern.ru [192.168.1.140]) by ns.tern.ru (X/X) with ESMTP id r2FDUNI2016233 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:30:23 +0400 (MSK) Received: from mail.tern.ru (root@localhost) by mail.tern.ru (X/X) with SMTP id r2FDUNnx004943 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:30:23 +0400 (MSK) Received: from localhost (snork.tern.ru [192.168.1.133]) by mail.tern.ru (X/X) with ESMTP id r2FDULZ5004938; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:30:22 +0400 (MSK) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:30:20 +0400 From: freebsd@tern.ru Organization: Tern X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1472823038.20130315173020@tern.ru> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: old perl vulnerabilitiy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:40:27 -0000 Hello Freebsd-security, I've got portaudit alarm on perl-5.8.9_7 with regard to perl -- denial of service via algorithmic complexity attack on hashing routines. Reference: http://portaudit.FreeBSD.org/68c1f75b-8824-11e2-9996-c48508086173.html But on the other server I have perl-threaded-5.8.9_7 and portaudit thinks that it is OK (no problem) Is it correct? It seems to me that threaded perl also should have the same problem. Please advise. PS. I know that it is old and "unsupported" but I don't want to upgrade without serious reason. And, any way, the "behavior" of portaudit seems to me not correct. With best regards, Alexandre Krasnov.