Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-01-30 15:32:25, schrieb Sam Morris:
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be
removed from the archive, since they are unsupported, and *very*
dangerous to use?
Sorry, that I ask, but where ist 2.4.28 ?
The
Dear Debian Users,
Due the to delay of security updated debian woody 2.4.18 kernels, I have
applied Simon Heywood's patch to the kernel-source-2.4.18 (ver 14.3) and
am making deb packages available for 386 and 686.
These kernels have been tested to stop the uselib() kernel root exploit.
Hi,
I tested the kernel with success. :)
Is only the uselib() root exploit fixed ?
I looked at http://www.isec.pl/vulnerabilities.html and saw also a other
problem and I think this should be solved (
kernel-image-2.4.18-1-686-smp can be affected).
On http://www.isec.pl/vulnerabilities04.html
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 at 22:35:44 +, Harald Krammer wrote:
Brett Hamilton wrote:
These kernel packages have been installed and appear to function well, but
they are still rather new and come with no warranty. Feel free to give
them a try, and let me know if you experience any problems.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I currently run Sarge on a few machines, but as I understand Debian policy,
Sarge does not receive security updates. The only security updates I can
expect are for Woody, so this makes Sarge unreliable for a production
environment.
Increasingly innaccurate; see
Am 2005-01-29 22:56:39, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:12:21PM -0800, peace bwitchu wrote:
This has been bothering me as well. They dropped
support for kernel 2.4.18 when Herbert Xu left but I
don't remember seeing any notification of this. I
roll my own but how
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2005-01-29 22:56:39, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This should be posted somewhere easy to find so that folks know.
Definitely it should be! IMO debian-announce or
debian-security-announce would be appropriate.
Where is it posted that the dropped
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:02:23PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Where is it posted that the dropped support for 2.4.18?
It was on debian-devel and debian-kernel
Michelle, can You cite the Message-Id's and/or URLs to the archive,
please?
Thanks.
Now Debian rocks, doesn't it? Kudos to the
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Where is it posted that the dropped support for 2.4.18?
It was on debian-devel and debian-kernel
They told, there are too much kernels to maintain and droped 2.4.(18-22)
They sugested to use one of the Backports.
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-*
Sam Morris wrote:
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be
^
should be 2.4.18, sorry :)
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP key id 5EA01078
Fingerprint 3412 EA18 1277 354B
Am 2005-01-30 13:37:13, schrieb Jan Minar:
Michelle, can You cite the Message-Id's and/or URLs to the archive,
please?
Unfortunatly not (my postgresql is curently down)
but I think, it was between April and June last year.
Maybe after the last BUGfix in 2.4.18
Thanks.
Now Debian rocks,
Am 2005-01-30 16:02:23, schrieb Sam Morris:
Sam Morris wrote:
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be
^
should be 2.4.18, sorry :)
:-)
Generaly there is no reason to
* Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050130 17:45]:
Michelle, can You cite the Message-Id's and/or URLs to the archive,
please?
Unfortunatly not (my postgresql is curently down)
but I think, it was between April and June last year.
Maybe after the last BUGfix in 2.4.18
Michelle,
Am 2005-01-30 19:17:25, schrieb Alexander Schmehl:
how does it come, that every time, you're telling such a story and are
requested for some proof, one of your services is down, you cite
completly unrelated URLs or you don't answer at all?
Why not go to http://lists.debian.org/ and search for
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-01-30 19:17:25, schrieb Alexander Schmehl:
how does it come, that every time, you're telling such a story and are
requested for some proof, one of your services is down, you cite
completly unrelated URLs or you
Am 2005-01-30 19:43:49, schrieb Jan Minar:
Because, darling, we already have done that, with no satisfactory
results, and a member of the DST just have said something which is quite
I am not police (DST) :-) but military.
contradictory to Your claims.
Yours,
Greetings
Michelle
--
Hi!
* Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050130 20:29]:
how does it come, that every time, you're telling such a story and are
requested for some proof, one of your services is down, you cite
completly unrelated URLs or you don't answer at all?
Why not go to http://lists.debian.org/ and
* Michelle Konzack wrote:
There will be no new version of 2.4.XX
Wrong.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings,
Am Sonntag, 30. Januar 2005 21:14 schrieb Alexander Schmehl:
Hi!
* Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050130 20:29]:
how does it come, that every time, you're telling such a story and are
requested for some proof, one of your services is down, you cite
completly unrelated
Paul Hink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2005-01-29 22:56:39, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Where is it posted that the dropped support for 2.4.18?
It was on debian-devel and debian-kernel
Both of which are lists mainly intended for developers and
Am 2005-01-30 22:13:08, schrieb Jan Lühr:
Greetings,
Don't take it down personal. Jugding about DSA's I've seen, there is
currently
_no_ security-support for 2.4.18. For reasons I don't know, for thinks, I
don't understand, important patches seem to be missing.
If you have information
* Jan Lühr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050130 22:13]:
Don't take it down personal. Jugding about DSA's I've seen, there is
currently
_no_ security-support for 2.4.18.
I didn't made any statement about security support of 2.4.18. All I
said was, that MK can't proof her own statement, that I can't a
Hi!
* Paul Hink [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050130 21:57]:
They told, there are too much kernels to maintain and droped
2.4.(18-22) They sugested to use one of the Backports.
And of course this is nothing to inform the ordinary users about, is
it?
Just to make sure that there are no
Greetings,
Am Sonntag, 30. Januar 2005 22:46 schrieb Alexander Schmehl:
* Jan Lühr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050130 22:13]:
Don't take it down personal. Jugding about DSA's I've seen, there is
currently _no_ security-support for 2.4.18.
I didn't made any statement about security support of
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:08:14PM +, Sam Morris wrote:
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Generaly there is no reason to remove 2.4.18.
But I think, there is a need to a note about Servers like
http://www.backports.org/ where they can get newer Kernels.
Well it seems sensible to remove such
Hi !
You are right, but why is the kernel image from woody not up-to date ?
A simple 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade' will not help. Is is not
better to remove the kernel image from woody and take the kernel image
2.4.27 ( I know , it is a version update). A lot of people use only the
kernel
Greetings,
Am Freitag, 28. Januar 2005 21:25 schrieb Harald Krammer:
hi !
I have running some debian/woody machines with kernel 2.4.18.
blocked@blocked:~$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.4.18-1-k7 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002
(Debian prerelease)) #1 Wed Apr 14
Am 2005-01-29 14:45:37, schrieb Harald Krammer:
Hi !
You are right, but why is the kernel image from woody not up-to date ?
There are Security Updates for kernel 2.4.18
A simple 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade' will not help. Is is not
better to remove the kernel image from woody and take
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
There are Security Updates for kernel 2.4.18
The last update for kernel-source-2.4.18 in stable was in April 2004.
BTW: I wonder why http://packages.qa.debian.org/k/kernel-source-2.4.18.html
contains the latest version 2.4.18-14.3 but no entry in the
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:12:21PM -0800, peace bwitchu wrote:
This has been bothering me as well. They dropped
support for kernel 2.4.18 when Herbert Xu left but I
don't remember seeing any notification of this. I
roll my own but how many boxes out there havn't been
patched because they
hi !
I have running some debian/woody machines with kernel 2.4.18.
blocked@blocked:~$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.4.18-1-k7 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002
(Debian prerelease)) #1 Wed Apr 14 19:20:42 UTC 2004
I saw the last security fix was DSA-479-1 ( long ago) - is it
Am 2005-01-28 21:25:55, schrieb Harald Krammer:
hi !
I have running some debian/woody machines with kernel 2.4.18.
I saw the last security fix was DSA-479-1 ( long ago) - is it better to
switch to 2.4.29 or exits new kernels with all security pachtes ?
AFAIK 2.4.27 from
On Friday 28 January 2005 at 23:51, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-01-28 21:25:55, schrieb Harald Krammer:
hi !
I have running some debian/woody machines with kernel 2.4.18.
I saw the last security fix was DSA-479-1 ( long ago) - is it better to
switch to 2.4.29 or exits new
33 matches
Mail list logo
