From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Apr 2 2:49:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60ABC37B71C for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 1978 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Apr 2001 09:48:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:48:07 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: Maarten de Vries Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH Message-ID: <20010402124807.H462@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Maarten de Vries , ports@FreeBSD.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from maarten@netraam.com on Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:36:28AM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Maarten de Vries wrote: > Hey, > > I noticed ports/security/openssh still carries 2.2.0, which isn't the > latest- nor very secure. Shouldn't this port be updated to 2.5.2? Not very secure? How so? If you mean the vulnerabilities of the stock 2.2.0 version, they have been fixed a long while ago. Also, ISTR that the port maintainer stated that he seemed to lack the free time to maintain that port anymore; if that is correct, then somebody could submit a port update, and/or assume maintainership; if that is not correct -- but it seems it was, maintainership was reverted to ports@FreeBSD.org. G'luck, Peter -- What would this sentence be like if it weren't self-referential? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message