From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 2 23:56:59 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C931065673 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:56:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout030.mac.com (asmtpout030.mac.com [17.148.16.105]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48998FC13 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:56:59 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from cswiger1.apple.com ([17.209.4.71]) by asmtp030.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0LCT00K4ERUCMY30@asmtp030.mac.com> for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:56:37 -0800 (PST) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1010190000 definitions=main-1012020149 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2010-12-02_11:2010-12-02, 2010-12-02, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 From: Chuck Swiger In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:56:36 -0800 Message-id: References: <20101202232206.66c672a1@ukr.net> <17BFBD62-414E-448B-A3CE-825C9467138E@mac.com> To: Rob Farmer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: Ivan Klymenko , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ftp/proftpd 1.3.3c with a version which contained a backdoor. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:56:59 -0000 On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Rob Farmer wrote: >> Checking, the tarball you now fetch is the one which matches their md5 and GnuPG signing from the link above... > > For several hours on Wednesday the distinfo was updated to the > compromised version (it has been reverted), so anyone who updated this > port recently should check their system. I see-- that's useful information to be aware of. Hopefully port maintainers practice a bit more wariness about distfiles changing unexpectedly; while it's common enough that people re-roll tarballs for whatever reason, it seems like there have been more incidents of reference sites getting owned... Regards, -- -Chuck