Bug#918848: Plans for stretch-backports wrt. CVE-2018-16864, CVE-2018-16865 and CVE-2018-16866?

2019-01-13 Thread intrigeri
intrigeri: > Michael Biebl: >> Please let us know about the results of those tests. > Will do! All green from the perspective of Tails' integration test suite :) I'll let you know if the reviewer for this Tails proposed change (most likely lamby) finds issues relevant to Debian. The backport

Bug#918848: Plans for stretch-backports wrt. CVE-2018-16864, CVE-2018-16865 and CVE-2018-16866?

2019-01-13 Thread intrigeri
Hi Michael! Thanks for the quick answer. Michael Biebl: > Am 13.01.19 um 10:46 schrieb intrigeri: >> What's your plan wrt. stretch-backports? > I do think we nailed the worst regressions by now, so my plan was to > wait until 240-4 has migrated to testing and then upload that to >

Bug#918848: Plans for stretch-backports wrt. CVE-2018-16864, CVE-2018-16865 and CVE-2018-16866?

2019-01-13 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 13.01.19 um 10:46 schrieb intrigeri: > Hi! > > In Tails we're shipping systemd/stretch-backports. We will freeze our > code base (and the APT repositories we use) on Jan 18 for our next > major release, so in the current state of things we would ship > 239-12~bpo9+1, which is vulnerable to

Bug#918848: Plans for stretch-backports wrt. CVE-2018-16864, CVE-2018-16865 and CVE-2018-16866?

2019-01-13 Thread intrigeri
Hi! In Tails we're shipping systemd/stretch-backports. We will freeze our code base (and the APT repositories we use) on Jan 18 for our next major release, so in the current state of things we would ship 239-12~bpo9+1, which is vulnerable to these 3 vulnerabilities. So I've started researching