From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 29 14:41:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD87E106564A for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:41:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu) Received: from mail.egr.msu.edu (gribble.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.169]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932008FC15 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:41:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gribble (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.egr.msu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7B1504FC for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:25:46 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at egr.msu.edu Received: from mail.egr.msu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by gribble (gribble.egr.msu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aYzoslvasXOs for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:25:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from EGR authenticated sender Message-ID: <4F4E3569.3020402@egr.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:25:45 -0500 From: Adam McDougall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120217 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org References: <201202281919.q1SJJ1Pf056109@repoman.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201202281919.q1SJJ1Pf056109@repoman.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/vuxml vuln.xml X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:41:38 -0000 On 02/28/12 14:19, Chris Rees wrote: > crees 2012-02-28 19:19:01 UTC > > FreeBSD ports repository > > Modified files: > security/vuxml vuln.xml > Log: > Document latest PostgreSQL vulnerabilities > > Security: http://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1377/ > > Revision Changes Path > 1.2620 +36 -1 ports/security/vuxml/vuln.xml > _______________________________________________ I think the postgresql server ports require the client to be installed, but shouldn't vuxml list the server ports as vulnerable too? I think the current state gives a misleading impression of where the vulnerabilities reside and detract attention from upgrading server processes. Thanks.