Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 15:44:00 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> To: Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: looking for committer, fixing qmail RCE Message-ID: <20200524134400.GD39563@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <45c17003-42bc-a8fd-6707-815215ff67d5@erdgeist.org> References: <31f3ecf4-0dc5-def9-e240-6661e319a533@erdgeist.org> <20200524130055.GC39563@home.opsec.eu> <45c17003-42bc-a8fd-6707-815215ff67d5@erdgeist.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > On 24.05.20 15:00, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > >> This PR was two months old, before recently an RCE was discovered that > >> would very much like to see fixed in ports. > Sure, was already at it, then I stumbled about the syntax for how to > report what combination of version and PORTREVISION to report for slave > ports, as they don't follow the same numbering scheme. > > These are the port versions / revision not affected anymore > > qmail-1.06_5 > qmail-tls-1.06_3 > qmail-mysql-1.06_2 > > Am I supposed to bump all PORTREVISION to the same number or do I have > to add entries for each slaveport? The <affects> section doesn't seem to > have a concept of different version for slave ports. Use three vuxml entries, one for each port (referencing 3 CVEs per entry). -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 Now what ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200524134400.GD39563>