From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep 13 16:12:08 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E177576E
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:12:08 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mail.lariat.net (mail.lariat.net [66.62.230.51])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966202C2C
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:12:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from Toshi.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.net@localhost
 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lariat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09855;
 Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:11:53 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <201309131611.KAA09855@mail.lariat.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 05:47:13 -0600
To: Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz>, Jonathon Wright <jonathon.s.wright@gmail.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Transient Memory problem?
In-Reply-To: <5232BE53.4040900@obluda.cz>
References: <CAGX1DMbQP=TggYQm-3hra0Od3gjgz5xQ8bEMMrueuhL6kuZMUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130912053559.GF68682@funkthat.com>
 <979901F9-5F25-4DF1-95A8-32473C55B25F@gmail.com>
 <52320144.2090807@freebsd.org>
 <CAGX1DMYAheUAV_eB4Z4R_YaMDx_LzrepEag5KyBC=EOxzhUiMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <EC4378DB-3AF0-40F7-98BC-0FE6D318938E@gmail.com>
 <CAGX1DMY=bSpOkzHT=4mYVfSb_tUR6TVTwZqnUcNM-ORa-GBsRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <201309130040.SAA28208@mail.lariat.net>
 <CAGX1DMaONPyJ=5yiu+FGxa6Q_9WK4hzht7MF5K2+CzMWrpfYbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+7WWScZB2UE9zM10YGMSGS4t1dat2CN5Eb3BDxKMZbWEFTz5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5232BE53.4040900@obluda.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <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: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:12:08 -0000

At 01:27 AM 9/13/2013, Dan Lukes wrote:
 
>Juniper's FreeBSD has been verified (whatever it mean in such particular
>case) as installed inside such router - e.g. version, patch level,
>kernel compilation options,  loaded kernel modules,  ...
>
>In short, results of security audit of FreeBSD 9.1-R-p2 compiled without
>if_re module is not applicable to FreeBSD 9.1-R-p3 compiled with if_re
>module nor to FreeBSD 9.1-R-p3 compiled without if_re module

True, but the details of memory allocation and scrubbing are unlikely to
change.

--Brett Glass