From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jul 13 13:44:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1DE37C561; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA75186; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Brett Glass Cc: Wes Peters , "David G. Andersen" , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two kinds of advisories? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000713142419.04b82ce0@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Brett Glass wrote: > I'm not the only one who has noticed that the current format has caused > third-party bugs to be seen as security holes in FreeBSD. Let's make it You are incorrect: the *old* naming scheme (no mention of 'Ports') in the subject was in force when this happened. I only started putting 'Ports' in the subject on July 5th, 8 days ago. This was done with the express intention of differentiating between the two streams. > Matt's idea of numbering Ports advisories as PORTS- to > distinguish them from bugs in FreeBSD proper. "Ports" is already in the subject. If someone doesn't know what "Ports" means, how will changing the advisory numbering make any difference? Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message