Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:27:09 +0100
From:      "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To:        Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: CVE-2015-7547: critical bug in libc
Message-ID:  <20160218182709.2380b719.ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <20160217134003.GB57405@mutt-hardenedbsd>
References:  <20160217142410.18748906@freyja.zeit4.iv.bundesimmobilien.de> <20160217134003.GB57405@mutt-hardenedbsd>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/rjY1OGvjYDJSxrPce3Rs8SU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:40:03 -0500
Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> schrieb:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:24:10PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > It is around now in the media also for non-OS developers: CVE-2015-7547
> > describes a bug in libc which is supposed to affects all Linux versions.
> >=20
> > big price question: is FreeBSD > 9.3 also affected?
> >=20
> > Some reporters tell us that Linux/UNIX is affected, so sometimes this t=
erminus
> > is used to prevent the "Linux-nailed" view, but sometimes it also refer=
es to
> > everything else those people can not imagine but consider them Linux-li=
ke. So
> > I'm a bit puzzled, since there is no report about *BSD is affected, too.
> >=20
> > Thanks in advance for shedding light onto CVE-2015-7547. =20
>=20
> The project that's vulnerable is called "glibc", not "libc". The BSDs
> don't use glibc, so the phrase "nothing to see here" applies. glibc
> isn't even available in FreeBSD's ports tree.
>=20
> TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20

The article, I refere to, did only mention "libc" and they used the terminus
"Linux/UNIX", and this is usually associted by that Linux-folks with the re=
st of the
UNIX-alike world after their precious Linux.

I followed then the explanation of the CVE and that stated very clearly, th=
at it is GNU
libc. So, I feel better now, but a pity of all that stuff in routers, switc=
hes, security
appliances utilizing Linux and the penetrated glic. :-)

--Sig_/rjY1OGvjYDJSxrPce3Rs8SU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWxf7uAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8RlAIAMDdY9NDFf6G8ElBKl7g/Kz6
Qu/UR45et0lkZoefVhS/T2mX0kM2bT3Jfw3oxE+JEHO2xwv8Xc1GPbu1qKaU+gSN
u5EdS8U8WOZzgSkE49t7NJiV3byMZskMIe79CPN79YwVc+NlNt406YSVFzrtjzFW
Ci+NCZfUpnh8MkfGrhyicgCwt5Q3vncE6xMykOeRxtUnnGGz26RrHZjmf25FAyl0
DuqD40o46IltXwQsILKY38dxkb8oP4sorvciE8tZc/2f3VywTraJtmnnsFQxwerP
dikwge+3yqa+mtWFksZ737ktjoI0zVAw3woaydp3NzK735mxgZlID6Zm8+M/WRg=
=+XEZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/rjY1OGvjYDJSxrPce3Rs8SU--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160218182709.2380b719.ohartman>