Re: openssh packages not vulnerable

2002-06-27 Thread Florian Weimer
Paul Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So as it turns out, AFAIK, none of the versions of OpenSSH in Debian were actually vulnerable to the exploit found by ISS and reported in DSA-134 The 3.3p1 packages are vulnerable in some configurations. :-( -- Florian Weimer[EMAIL

Re: openssh packages not vulnerable

2002-06-27 Thread John Galt
Note that Potato users actually BECAME vulnerable by installing this security fix. On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Florian Weimer wrote: Paul Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So as it turns out, AFAIK, none of the versions of OpenSSH in Debian were actually vulnerable to the exploit found by ISS and

openssh packages not vulnerable

2002-06-26 Thread Paul Baker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So as it turns out, AFAIK, none of the versions of OpenSSH in Debian were actually vulnerable to the exploit found by ISS and reported in DSA-134 Potato wasn't vulnerable because it is SSH1 only, and the problem lies in the

Re: openssh packages not vulnerable

2002-06-26 Thread Travis Cole
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:35:21PM -0500, Paul Baker wrote: I'm curious what recourse Debian is planning to take now? Perhaps removing the buggy OpenSSH 3.3 packages off of security.debian.org so people don't upgrade to it since it's not at all necessary and it will only cause problems

Re: openssh packages not vulnerable

2002-06-26 Thread Richard
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Paul Baker wrote: I'm curious what recourse Debian is planning to take now? Perhaps removing the buggy OpenSSH 3.3 packages off of security.debian.org so people don't upgrade to it since it's not at all necessary and it will only cause problems like screwing up

Re: openssh packages not vulnerable

2002-06-26 Thread Paul Baker
On Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 03:50 PM, Richard wrote: Even worse, on 2.0.x kernels PrivilegeSeparation doesn't work, rendinging sshd useless for interactive sessions or make it vurneble is you disable it. All debian versions of ssh packages are not vulnerable, AFAIK. I'm hoping the