Bug#448644: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#448644: Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-05 Thread Matthijs Mohlmann
Russ Allbery wrote: Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, attached is a proposal for an NMU. It will be archived on: http://people.debian.org/~nion/nmu-diff/openldap2.3-2.38-1_2.3.38-1.1.patch I'm not sure why we would do this rather than just package 2.3.39. Wouldn't the latter be a

Bug#448644: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#448644: Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-05 Thread Nico Golde
Hi Matthijs, * Matthijs Mohlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-05 11:19]: Russ Allbery wrote: Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: attached is a proposal for an NMU. It will be archived on: http://people.debian.org/~nion/nmu-diff/openldap2.3-2.38-1_2.3.38-1.1.patch I'm not sure why we would do

Bug#448644: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#448644: Bug#448644: Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-05 Thread Russ Allbery
Matthijs Mohlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upgrade to 2.3.39 is I think the better choice here and after that we can make the switch to 2.4. And now that 2.4 is officially released I can add some initially packaging for 2.4 in svn. If you have some spare cycles to work on 2.3.39, please go

Bug#448644: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#448644: Bug#448644: Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-05 Thread Nico Golde
Hi Russ, * Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-05 18:34]: Matthijs Mohlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upgrade to 2.3.39 is I think the better choice here and after that we can make the switch to 2.4. And now that 2.4 is officially released I can add some initially packaging for 2.4

Bug#448644: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#448644: Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-05 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:15:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Hi, attached is a proposal for an NMU. It will be archived on: http://people.debian.org/~nion/nmu-diff/openldap2.3-2.38-1_2.3.38-1.1.patch I'm not sure why we would do this rather than just package 2.3.39. Wouldn't the

Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-04 Thread Nico Golde
Hi, attached is a proposal for an NMU. It will be archived on: http://people.debian.org/~nion/nmu-diff/openldap2.3-2.38-1_2.3.38-1.1.patch HTH, Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.

Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-04 Thread Nico Golde
Hi, sorry the first patch was missing an ',', updated patch attached. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. diff -u openldap2.3-2.3.38/debian/changelog

Bug#448644: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-11-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, attached is a proposal for an NMU. It will be archived on: http://people.debian.org/~nion/nmu-diff/openldap2.3-2.38-1_2.3.38-1.1.patch I'm not sure why we would do this rather than just package 2.3.39. Wouldn't the latter be a better idea for

Bug#448644: CVE-2007-5708 remote denial of service

2007-10-30 Thread Nico Golde
Package: slapd Version: 2.3.38 Severity: grave Tags: security patch Hi, the following CVE (Common Vulnerabilities Exposures) id was published for slapd. CVE-2007-5708[0]: Name: CVE-2007-5708 Status: Candidate URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2007-5708 Reference: