From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 20 12:15:37 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF44BAA
 for <FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:15:37 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org)
Received: from noop.in-addr.com (mail.in-addr.com [IPv6:2001:470:8:162::1])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D80B8FC0C
 for <FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:15:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gjp by noop.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <gpalmer@freebsd.org>)
 id 1Tamjj-00018f-1f; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:15:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:15:30 -0500
From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
To: John Bayly <john.bayly@tipstrade.net>
Subject: Re: Clarrification on whether portsnap was affected by the 2012
 compromise
Message-ID: <20121120121530.GC88593@in-addr.com>
References: <50AB6029.4090608@tipstrade.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50AB6029.4090608@tipstrade.net>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gpalmer@freebsd.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on noop.in-addr.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:15:37 -0000

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:49:13AM +0000, John Bayly wrote:
> Regarding the 2012 compromise, I'm a little confused as to what was and
> wasn't affected:
> 
> >From the release:
> > or of any ports compiled from trees obtained via any means other than
> > through svn.freebsd.org or one of its mirrors
> Does that mean that any ports updated using the standard "portsnap
> fetch" may have been affected, I'm guessing yes.
> 

" We have also verified that the most recently-available portsnap(8) snapshot matches the ports Subversion repository, and so can be fully trusted. "