1 |
>>> > Does anybody know more about this "security flaw in the open-source Linux |
2 |
>>> > GNU C Library" |
3 |
>>> > |
4 |
>>> > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/linux-makers-release-patch-to-thwart-new-ghost-cyber-threat/article22662060/?cmpid=rss1 |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> I updated a system of mine that was using an old version of glibc and |
8 |
>>> rebooted. I can't do a full emerge world there or use various other |
9 |
>>> portage tools due to the peculiarities of my current situation. Could |
10 |
>>> I still be vulnerable? |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Your system may be vulnerable to this issue only if you have |
13 |
>> packages statically linked with vulnerable glibc libs, so most |
14 |
>> likely — no. But your system may be affected by a plenty of other |
15 |
>> issues in various packages. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> At the very least you should apply all GLSAs to your system: while |
18 |
>> they don't encompass all vulnerabilities, they should warn you |
19 |
>> about most common and important ones. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I don't think I have USE=static anywhere. Any way to confirm? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I've been watching glsa.gentoo.org (a little dismayed that this glibc |
25 |
> vulnerability isn't there yet) but you prompted me to give glsa-check |
26 |
> a try. It's telling me I'm vulnerable to some that I clearly am not |
27 |
> vulnerable to. Do I need to clear a cache somewhere? |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
glsa-check is working fine, it was a slotted issue. Still curious |
31 |
about a way to check for statically linked packages. |
32 |
|
33 |
- Grant |