Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:47:56 +0000 From: John Bayly <john.bayly@tipstrade.net> To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Clarrification on whether portsnap was affected by the 2012 compromise Message-ID: <50AB7BFC.7040506@tipstrade.net> In-Reply-To: <20121120121530.GC88593@in-addr.com> References: <50AB6029.4090608@tipstrade.net> <20121120121530.GC88593@in-addr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/11/12 12:15, Gary Palmer wrote: > 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. " I suppose that implies that the previous portsnap snapshots couldn't be [completely] trusted. Basically I wanted to know whether I had to go through all the ports I've updated from the snapshots within the given time frame and to a portupgrade --force on them. In the end I decided yes (luckily it's only on a single box)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50AB7BFC.7040506>