| 1 |
Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17/06/06, Raymond Lewis Rebbeck <dystopianray@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I believe any potential security problems would only concern you if you were |
| 5 |
>> running a telnet daemon not just using a client. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> All telnet apps mentioned in the thread have glsa's about them re: |
| 8 |
> buffer overflows. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
They do? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/ |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I can't find any *current* GLSAs regarding netcat and telnet. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
telnet-bsd: http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-200504-01.xml 2005 - rather |
| 17 |
old. Current Versions in portage are not affected. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
netkit-telnet: http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-200503-36.xml 2005, again. |
| 20 |
Fixed in currently available versions. |
| 21 |
http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-200410-03.xml 2004. no comment. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And that's it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, I disagree and stand to what I just wrote. I know of no security |
| 26 |
problems. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> On the other hand I won't be running them for any |
| 29 |
> great length of time, so it may be OK. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Actually, that's IMO a wrong attitude. Also a short exposure makes you |
| 32 |
vulnerable. If the software would be vulnerable, also a short "attack" |
| 33 |
might be sufficient to break into your system. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
BUT: As there are no GLSAs, I'd say that there are no currently known |
| 36 |
security problems. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Alexander Skwar |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
<Knghtbrd> glDisable (GL_BUGS); |
| 41 |
<Endy> heh |
| 42 |
<Endy> Is that in 1.2? :) |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives