Hello,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:06:02PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> More relevantly to this thread, the equivalent check with 'apt-cache
> showsrc grub2' (since grub2 is the source-package name for the packages
> named in the CVE mentioned by debsecan, according to the OP) shows 49
> binary
On 2022-11-04 at 13:08, Curt wrote:
> On 2022-11-04, wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:52:29PM -, Curt wrote:
>>> I don't really know, but maybe because
>
>>> Much like the official Debian security advisories, debsecan's
>>> vulnerability tracking is mostly based on source
On 2022-11-04, wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:52:29PM -, Curt wrote:
>> On 2022-11-02, Andy Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > So why is debsecan reporting this as a security issue?
>> >
>> > This is a very old host that has been continually upgraded since Debian
>> I don't really know, but
On 2022-11-04 at 12:49, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:52:29PM -, Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2022-11-02, Andy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So why is debsecan reporting this as a security issue?
>>>
>>> This is a very old host that has been continually upgraded since
>>> Debian
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:52:29PM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2022-11-02, Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > So why is debsecan reporting this as a security issue?
> >
> > This is a very old host that has been continually upgraded since Debian
>
> I don't really know, but maybe because
>
> Much like the
On 2022-11-02, Andy Smith wrote:
>
> So why is debsecan reporting this as a security issue?
>
> This is a very old host that has been continually upgraded since Debian
I don't really know, but maybe because
Much like the official Debian security advisories, debsecan's
vulnerability tracking
6 matches
Mail list logo
