Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:08:05 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: Vladimir Terziev <Vladimir.Terziev@bwinparty.com> Cc: Gregory Orange <gregory.orange@calorieking.com>, "<freebsd-security@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-16:33.openssh Message-ID: <CAGMYy3t%2B-dZiFEDLEznTFHzHzRnk9-=AyqcqJ7L1BoMQ01HOAg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <97DEB29F-E625-4A74-9E1A-BC2A220DCF5A@bwinparty.com> References: <20161102075533.8BBA114B5@freefall.freebsd.org> <201611021357.uA2DvHMW003088@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <CA%2B7WWSc%2B_Jjf%2BStVb2n367%2B7YSCw-RnGMTbT4nbaE88d_n57%2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <b8dcb2aa-4149-89ad-e519-8ce68922d0a8@FreeBSD.org> <24ff198d-9bd2-9842-50d8-8a1d5e2ecf8a@FreeBSD.org> <79b7122f-3b1a-377f-42bf-bd2851c5e6ae@calorieking.com> <97DEB29F-E625-4A74-9E1A-BC2A220DCF5A@bwinparty.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The issue was originally reported to us as affecting OpenSSH 6.8+ (reference: RedHat bugtracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384860), and therefore 9.3, 10.1 and 10.2 were not believed to be affected, so the "Affects: All supported versions of FreeBSD" was a mistake in the original advisory text. We will investigate if the statement is true and will issue patches for earlier FreeBSD releases, if they are confirmed to be affected. The patch for 10.x can be amended (change "ssh_dispatch_set" to "dispatch_set") to adapt to the earlier releases, by the way. On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Vladimir Terziev <Vladimir.Terziev@bwinparty.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if you look at the advisory, it states "Affects: All supported versions of FreeBSD.", while in the "Corrected" section 10.1 & 10.2 are missing. > > They are still supported, so the fix for them must be developed or they must be listed as not affected, if that's the case. > > > Regards, > > Vladimir > > > On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Gregory Orange <gregory.orange@calorieking.com> wrote: > >> On 04/11/16 16:39, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >>> Security advisories should state explicitly when otherwise supported >>> versions are not vulnerable. It's surprising this isn't already the case. >> I disagree. If none of the version I have installed are listed, I don't read the rest of the advisory. Time saved. Listing them in a 'not affected' part of the message would add complexity and parsing for me - less time saved. >> >> Greg. >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGMYy3t%2B-dZiFEDLEznTFHzHzRnk9-=AyqcqJ7L1BoMQ01HOAg>