From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Aug 24 10:47:59 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE1C16A4BF
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org
	(adsl-64-169-107-97.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.107.97])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B397643F93
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org)
Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5])
	by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0F65266B04; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id C8C60643; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:57 -0700
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20030824174757.GA9678@rot13.obsecurity.org>
References: <20030824170354.GA9172@rot13.obsecurity.org>
	<5.0.2.1.1.20030824064019.02d7d090@popserver.sfu.ca>
	<5.0.2.1.1.20030824064019.02d7d090@popserver.sfu.ca>
	<5.0.2.1.1.20030824103515.02cbf388@popserver.sfu.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20030824103515.02cbf388@popserver.sfu.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: EoL dates
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:47:59 -0000


--sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:38:49AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 10:14 24/08/2003 -0700, I wrote:
> >  Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point.  There are=
=20
> >five release branches now which are "not officially supported", but I=20
> >have yet to see any circumstance where they have, in fact, not been=20
> >supported.  If those branches were not being supported because people=20
> >were too busy to support them, I'd understand perfectly; but as far as I=
=20
> >can see, those branches *are* being supported.
>=20
>   Oops.  As hawkeyd@visi.com has just pointed out to me, I didn't look fa=
r=20
> enough; SA-03:01, :02, :03, :05, and :06 didn't have official patches for=
=20
> the unsupported branches.

Yep.  In many cases the security team will go "beyond the call of
duty" to fix problems in non-supported releases, but it comes down to
factors like how significant the hole is, how easy the patch is to
backport and how motivated security-officer is to fix it for
non-supported releases.

Kris
--sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/SPpNWry0BWjoQKURAuvnAKCFwVUVjRDwTKXYsGBO/ZIt7n9thgCeMaA6
xMIa/rrKiksKCaAIzHegT4Q=
=ok2R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu--