From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon Feb 22 00:03:07 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EB2AAFB51 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:03:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2D21CB7 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:03:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u1M04ZAI029048 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 16:04:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: In-Reply-To: References: <20160217142410.18748906@freyja.zeit4.iv.bundesimmobilien.de> <20160217134003.GB57405@mutt-hardenedbsd> <56C50A0C.5090207@m.jwh.me.uk>, From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: CVE-2015-7547: critical bug in libc Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 16:04:41 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:03:07 -0000 On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:39:32 -0600 (CST) Dan Mack wrote > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Joe Holden wrote: > > > On 17/02/2016 14:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> > >>> On 17.02.2016 ?., at 15:40, Shawn Webb > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547. > >> > >> > >> Unless you use Linux applications under emulation. > >> > >> Daniel > >> > > Which is supported by ports so at most it should be a ports advisory and > > not a FreeBSD (base) SA and therefore not on the website. > > > > Just my 2p ;) > > Documenting and putting out security advisiories for other operating > systems seems like a bad precedent in general. The same could be said > for runniing java applications, windows under bhyve, etc. - *sigh* - > if the cross over use is common via a port, then have the port maybe > remind users to consult their distribution specific security > vulnerabilites prior to running it maybe - which is what they should > be doing anyway. > > That's my two insignificant cents :-) > > Dan If Sell distributes a bad batch of gasoline. It's not Chevrolet's responsibility to inform it's car buyers/owners, that Shell produced a bad batch of gasoline. Is it? :) --Chris