On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:14:18PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi Balint,
>
> On 31/01/17 21:46, Balint Reczey wrote:
> > Log:
> > wavpack's issues don't affect wheezy
> >
> > The first part of the upstream patch is not needed since the
> > code is very different and not vulnerable.
>
On 01/02/17 00:42, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
>
> 2017-01-31 22:23 GMT+01:00 Bálint Réczey :
>> Hi Emilio,
>>
>> 2017-01-31 22:14 GMT+01:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>>> Hi Balint,
>>>
>>> On 31/01/17 21:46, Balint Reczey wrote:
Log:
wavpack's issues don't affect wheezy
T
Hi Emilio,
2017-01-31 22:23 GMT+01:00 Bálint Réczey :
> Hi Emilio,
>
> 2017-01-31 22:14 GMT+01:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>> Hi Balint,
>>
>> On 31/01/17 21:46, Balint Reczey wrote:
>>> Log:
>>> wavpack's issues don't affect wheezy
>>>
>>> The first part of the upstream patch is not needed since
Hi Emilio,
2017-01-31 22:14 GMT+01:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> Hi Balint,
>
> On 31/01/17 21:46, Balint Reczey wrote:
>> Log:
>> wavpack's issues don't affect wheezy
>>
>> The first part of the upstream patch is not needed since the
>> code is very different and not vulnerable.
>> The second par
Hi Balint,
On 31/01/17 21:46, Balint Reczey wrote:
> Log:
> wavpack's issues don't affect wheezy
>
> The first part of the upstream patch is not needed since the
> code is very different and not vulnerable.
> The second part applies, but does not make any difference when
> trying the exploits. Te
