From owner-freebsd-security Wed Apr 18 21:40: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from proxy.OBK.ru (ovk.barrt.ru [194.84.233.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2422037B422 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:39:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from subs@ovk.altai.ru) Received: from localhost (subs@localhost) by proxy.OBK.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA36543; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:38:48 +0700 (NOVST) (envelope-from subs@ovk.altai.ru) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:38:48 +0700 (NOVST) From: "Yuri A. Wolf" X-Sender: subs@proxy.obk.ru To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ntp-4.0.99k23? In-Reply-To: <200104190431.f3J4V3S54698@cwsys.cwsent.com> 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 Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote: > > Is the 1st one vulnerable? Is the 2d one ok? > > Both are invulnerable. 4.0.99k_2 is patched by the port (see the files > directory) to fix the vulnerability. 4.0.99k23 has the patches for the > vulnerability built into it. In the end both are equivalent. > Ok, thank you. Those differences in files directory was the reason of my question. -- Yuri Wolf wolf@ovk.altai.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message