[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:33:37 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: bash security update (CVE-2014-6271)
As many of you are aware, the initial bash security updates are not
final. Please expect further updates soon. There's a lengthy thread
discussing this on oss-security, and here's a summary:
http://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2014/09/quick-notes-about-bash-bug-its-impact.html
There is not yet a consensus on how distros should address the issues,
beyond applying upstream's patches.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:24:17PM +0400, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
> On 25-Sep-2014 06:07:46 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > Please note that Owl-current is undergoing some invasive updates
> > now, so there are some inconsistencies between its source tree and
> > the currently available binary packages (for some other packages,
> > not for bash), most of which haven't been rebuilt yet. We'll take
> > care of producing proper binary builds with all of these other
> > updates shortly.
>
> I'd suggest a quick workaround for possible binary incompatibilities:
> publish all .src.rpm files for each -current snapshot - as Owl has a
> complete build environment, urgent update of a single package could
> be as simple as `rpmbuild --rebuild ftp://.../package-1.2.3-1.src.rpm`
This might make sense once we've updated some key libraries in -current,
yet some people still want -current's security updates for older
versions of Owl (older than the currently supported -stable branch).
I'd expect many of such rebuild attempts to fail, though.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
