| 1 |
Am Freitag, 22. August 2003 22:18 schrieb Paul de Vrieze: |
| 2 |
> Maybe a bug classification could be used like: |
| 3 |
> (local exploit, remote exploit, denial of service, local denial of |
| 4 |
> service) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
yes, that would be fine. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> If you want to make sure a point is not missed by the security team, |
| 9 |
> post a bug on bugs.gentoo.org and make sure you make clear it is a |
| 10 |
> security bug. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Of course I know, that it is to me to support the Gentoo Linux Security |
| 13 |
Team by providing information in form of posted bugs. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But that was not my point. I try to make it clearer, please let me give |
| 16 |
you an example: |
| 17 |
The unzip-5.50-r2.ebuild fixes a well known security bug as everybody |
| 18 |
can read in $PORTDIR/app-arch/unzip/ChangeLog. I would like to have had |
| 19 |
a GLSA about that fact, so that I must not examine the related |
| 20 |
ChangeLogs by hand. Just the information about that, not more. |
| 21 |
(As far as I remember, there was no GLSA in Gentoo-announce, nor in |
| 22 |
Gentoo-security). I feel we have more fixes, than there are announced. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As I understand GLSA, they are 'announcements' and a new ebuild, which |
| 25 |
fixes a bug should be announced in every case. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Karsten |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
(If I missed this special GLSA about the unzip flaw, please give me the |
| 30 |
URI to the corresponding GLSA, I can't find it in my mail archive, nor |
| 31 |
in the forums, thank you) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives