From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 19:51:06 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC76E106564A; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:51:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from coley@linus.mitre.org) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (smtp-bedford.mitre.org [129.83.20.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC798FC19; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:51:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from coley@linus.mitre.org) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAIJp2cd006793; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:51:05 -0500 Received: from linus.mitre.org (linus.mitre.org [129.83.10.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAIJp0MO006598; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:51:00 -0500 Received: from faron.mitre.org (faron.mitre.org [129.83.10.2]) by linus.mitre.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id mAIJoxBn006959; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:50:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:50:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Steven M. Christey" X-X-Sender: coley@faron.mitre.org To: Eygene Ryabinkin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20081118103433.38D5817115@shadow.codelabs.ru> <4922B371.6070002@quis.cx> <4922B6F9.2000408@quis.cx> <9a6isDG2HABVFiTQKRYgHLbugj0@N7cbPDipnvOyJMD9YzFbYf8QNqE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:03:26 +0000 Cc: Jille Timmermans , bug-followup@freebsd.org, "Steven M. Christey" , freebsd-security@freebsd.org, mloveless@mitre.org, cve@mitre.org, coley@mitre.org Subject: Re: ports/128956: [patch] [vuxml] multiple vulnerabilities in PHP 5.2.6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:51:06 -0000 > So, the VuXML entry should be changed accordingly. New content is > attached. Just for my own understanding, did the erroneous CVE description cause any extra work on your part? What if the desc had only said "5.2 through 5.2.6" at first? I'm asking because I'm trying to understandind how people use CVE and what impact our errors might have on others. Thanks, Steve