On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
* CVE-2012-4527: stack-based buffer overflow by encryption / decryption
of
overly long file names (Closes: #690924)
I've reviewed this and it looks mostly good. However, can you explain
why you chose ERRWIDTH=PATH_MAX+1024
On Friday 02 November 2012 17:58:08 you wrote:
(...)
Again, determining the right solution would be best to discuss on
the redhat bug or preferably with upstream.
Ok. I did post that on redhat bugzilla.
upstream did not publish anything for years...
Until those things happen, I am going to
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
I don't see the point to upload a version of just that to mentors.
Just use:
patch -p 1 80-width patch
, update the changelog and you're done with the NMU.
It gives you a chance to be the one contributing to the release. I'm
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package mcrypt
Package name: mcrypt
Version : 2.6.8-1.3
URL : http://mcrypt.sourceforge.net/
License : GPL-3
Section : utils
It builds those binary
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
mcrypt (2.6.8-1.3) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Non-maintainer upload.
* CVE-2012-4527: stack-based buffer overflow by encryption / decryption of
overly long file names (Closes: #690924)
I've reviewed this and it looks
* CVE-2012-4527: stack-based buffer overflow by encryption / decryption of
overly long file names (Closes: #690924)
I've reviewed this and it looks mostly good. However, can you explain
why you chose ERRWIDTH=PATH_MAX+1024 vs. the redhat patch WIDTH=80?
I don't know exactly.
It
6 matches
Mail list logo
