Bug#536498: Please backport roundcube CVE-2008-5619

2009-07-14 Thread Benjamin Bannier
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:28:30 +0200 Nico Golde n...@debian.org wrote: * Gerfried Fuchs rho...@deb.at [2009-07-13 14:17]: * Benjamin Bannier benjamin.bann...@netronaut.de [2009-07-10 17:14:45 CEST]: thanks for your quick response. I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports

Bug#536498: Please backport roundcube CVE-2008-5619

2009-07-13 Thread Benjamin Bannier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:27:31 +0200 Gerfried Fuchs rho...@deb.at wrote: ... which, in the case of this bugreport, is done. 0.1.1-9 did fix CVE-2008-5619 for etch-backports, so it rather seems to me that Benjamin got some things mixed up, unless

Bug#536498: Please backport roundcube CVE-2008-5619

2009-07-10 Thread Benjamin Bannier
Package: roundcube Version: 0.2.2-1 Severity: grave Tags: security Justification: user security hole Hi, I have roundcube 0.1.1.10 installed from backports, and I see people exploiting roundcube CVE-2008-5619 (http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1485618). Any chances the fix mentioned there could

Bug#536498: closed by Nico Golde n...@debian.org (Re: Bug#536498: Please backport roundcube CVE-2008-5619)

2009-07-10 Thread Benjamin Bannier
Hi, thanks for your quick response. I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. I presume this doesn't include the patch to fix this specific issue. I urge you to please make a version bump to backports since this is a security issue. Thanks, Benjamin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#536498: closed by Nico Golde n...@debian.org (Re: Bug#536498: Please backport roundcube CVE-2008-5619)

2009-07-10 Thread Benjamin Bannier
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:45:41 +0200 Nico Golde n...@debian.org wrote: I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. [..] That's why I marked this bug as done with the unstable version. Sorry, maybe I got confused. I reported this bug here because the backports version was listed in