On 22/02/2016 00:04, Chris H wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:39:32 -0600 (CST) Dan Mack wrote
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Joe Holden wrote:
On 17/02/2016 14:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 17.02.2016 ?., at 15:40, Shawn Webb
wrote: >>>
TL;DR: FreeBSD
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:39:32 -0600 (CST) Dan Mack wrote
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Joe Holden wrote:
>
> > On 17/02/2016 14:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 17.02.2016 ?., at 15:40, Shawn Webb
> >>> wrote: >>>
> >>> TL;DR: FreeBSD is not
Hi!
> > A short note on the www.freebsd.org website would probably be helpful,
> > as this case will produce a lot of noise.
> I'd like to second this! This could be some kind of use for the
> further propagation of FreeBSD!
> Many people asked me since yesterday, whether the operating system I
Am Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:50:28 +0100
Kurt Jaeger schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> > The project that's vulnerable is called "glibc", not "libc". The BSDs
> > don't use glibc, so the phrase "nothing to see here" applies. glibc
> > isn't even available in FreeBSD's ports tree.
> >
> > TL;DR:
Am Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:40:03 -0500
Shawn Webb schrieb:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:24:10PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > It is around now in the media also for non-OS developers: CVE-2015-7547
> > describes a bug in libc which is supposed to affects all Linux
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Joe Holden wrote:
On 17/02/2016 14:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 17.02.2016 ?., at 15:40, Shawn Webb wrote:
TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
Unless you use Linux applications under emulation.
Daniel
Which is supported by
On 17/02/2016 14:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 17.02.2016 г., at 15:40, Shawn Webb wrote:
TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
Unless you use Linux applications under emulation.
Daniel
Which is supported by ports so at most it should be a ports
On 18/02/2016 4:23 AM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>
>> On 18/02/2016 3:51 AM, Warren Block wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>>>
On 02/17/2016 08:19, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> A
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
On 18/02/2016 3:51 AM, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
On 02/17/2016 08:19, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
A short note on the www.freebsd.org website would probably be helpful,
as this
On 18/02/2016 3:51 AM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>
>> On 02/17/2016 08:19, Warren Block wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>>>
A short note on the www.freebsd.org website would probably be helpful,
as this case will produce a lot of
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
On 02/17/2016 08:19, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
A short note on the www.freebsd.org website would probably be helpful,
as this case will produce a lot of noise.
Maybe a short article like we did for leap seconds?
On 02/17/2016 08:19, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> A short note on the www.freebsd.org website would probably be helpful,
>> as this case will produce a lot of noise.
>
> Maybe a short article like we did for leap seconds?
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 07:19:07AM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> >> The project that's vulnerable is called "glibc", not "libc". The BSDs
> >> don't use glibc, so the phrase "nothing to see here" applies. glibc
> >> isn't even available in
> On 17.02.2016 г., at 15:40, Shawn Webb wrote:
>
> TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
Unless you use Linux applications under emulation.
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Hi!
> >> TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
>
> What about software that uses emulators/linux_base?
>
> > A short note on the www.freebsd.org website would probably be helpful,
> > as this case will produce a lot of noise.
>
> Maybe a short article like we did for leap seconds?
>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
The project that's vulnerable is called "glibc", not "libc". The BSDs
don't use glibc, so the phrase "nothing to see here" applies. glibc
isn't even available in FreeBSD's ports tree.
TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
What about
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:07:25PM +0200, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
> > On 17.02.2016 ??., at 15:40, Shawn Webb wrote:
> >
> > TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
>
>
> Unless you use Linux applications under emulation.
True. I didn't think of that
Hi!
> The project that's vulnerable is called "glibc", not "libc". The BSDs
> don't use glibc, so the phrase "nothing to see here" applies. glibc
> isn't even available in FreeBSD's ports tree.
>
> TL;DR: FreeBSD is not affected by CVE-2015-7547.
A short note on the www.freebsd.org website
Hi,
as Shawn types faster then me...
the libc issue has been found from glibc which is not used in the BSD
family.
This is the affected libc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library
What FreeBSD uses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_libc
-Tommi
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, O.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:24:10PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> It is around now in the media also for non-OS developers: CVE-2015-7547
> describes a bug in libc which is supposed to affects all Linux versions.
>
> big price question: is FreeBSD > 9.3 also affected?
>
> Some reporters tell us
It is around now in the media also for non-OS developers: CVE-2015-7547
describes a bug in libc which is supposed to affects all Linux versions.
big price question: is FreeBSD > 9.3 also affected?
Some reporters tell us that Linux/UNIX is affected, so sometimes this terminus
is used to prevent
21 matches
Mail list logo