The Fx version is in:
mozilla\browser\config\version.txt
Be aware that SeaMonkey is build from the THUNDERBIRD_52_VERBRANCH which is
not bleeding edge but contains OSX and some other mailnews fixes. If you want
bleeding edge you need to merge default to it.
FRG
Richmond wrote:
Frank-Rainer Grahl writes:
> 2.49.1 is based on the latest 52.4 so the CVE is in it.
>
OK thanks but how can I tell that is the case without asking here? Or to
put it another way, how do I know when to recompile and what version of
firefox ESR the code I check out will be based
2.49.1 is based on the latest 52.4 so the CVE is in it.
Richmond wrote:
How do I tell if, for example, CVE-2017-7810 has been addressed in
Seamonkey? I see it is fixed in Firefox ESR 52.4. So if I recompile will
it be in Seamonkey comm-esr52?
I have been looking here:
On 03/11/2017 16:26, Richmond wrote:
> How do I tell if, for example, CVE-2017-7810 has been addressed in
> Seamonkey? I see it is fixed in Firefox ESR 52.4. So if I recompile will
> it be in Seamonkey comm-esr52?
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2017-22/#CVE-2017-7810
How do I tell if, for example, CVE-2017-7810 has been addressed in
Seamonkey? I see it is fixed in Firefox ESR 52.4. So if I recompile will
it be in Seamonkey comm-esr52?
I have been looking here:
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-esr52/log
But cannot see anything corresponding to CVE
seemonkey wrote:
But it would close the vulnerability in nss. If one would release a seamonkey
let's say 2.40.1 only with the change of nss 3.21.1 the result would be the
same as i described. I didn't mention any bug in the base product. The whole
topic was started with nss and not bugs/sec
will be 2.46 if the l10n build
> bug
> can be fixed in time.
>
> FRG
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:59:19 +0200, Ray_Net wrote:
>
> >>Lee wrote on 16/10/2016 17:45:
> >>> On 10/16/16, Ray_Net wrote:
> >>>> seemonkey wrote on 13/10/2016 08
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 18/10/2016 22:03:
I wouldn't start hacking together a version with different binaries. Might work
might not. And this won't close any bugs in the base product which could be
exploited if you are so concerned about security.
Ok, I will stay with my official SM 2.40
gt; On 10/16/16, Ray_Net <tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> wrote:
>>>> seemonkey12...@gmail.com wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06:
>>>>> There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
>>>>> version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bi
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:59:26 PM UTC+2, Ray_Net wrote:
> Lee wrote on 16/10/2016 17:45:
> > On 10/16/16, Ray_Net wrote:
> >> seemonkey wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06:
> >>> There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
> >>>
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:59:19 +0200, Ray_Net
<tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> wrote:
>Lee wrote on 16/10/2016 17:45:
>> On 10/16/16, Ray_Net <tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> wrote:
>>> seemonkey12...@gmail.com wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06:
>>>> T
Lee wrote on 16/10/2016 17:45:
On 10/16/16, Ray_Net <tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> wrote:
seemonkey12...@gmail.com wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06:
There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-201
On 10/16/16, Ray_Net <tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> wrote:
> seemonkey12...@gmail.com wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06:
>> There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
>> version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
>
seemonkey12...@gmail.com wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06:
There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
There was a bugfix in NSS https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1245528
to solve
WaltS48 wrote:
On 10/14/2016 08:49 PM, Edward wrote:
TCW wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT), seemonkey12...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from
this NSS version:
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
On 10/14/2016 08:49 PM, Edward wrote:
TCW wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT), seemonkey12...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this
NSS version:
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
There was a bugfix
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:49:48 AM UTC+2, Edward wrote:
> TCW wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT), seemonkey
> > wrote:
> >
> >> There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
> >> version: http://www.cve
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 3:10:42 PM UTC+2, TCW wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT), seemonkey
>
> >There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
> >version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
> &g
TCW wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT), seemonkey12...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
There was a bugfix in NSS https://bugzilla.mozilla.org
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT), seemonkey12...@gmail.com
wrote:
>There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
>version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
>
>There was a bugfix in NSS https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/sho
There's at least one security vulnerability that is missing from this NSS
version: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-1950
There was a bugfix in NSS https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1245528
to solve this issue but unfortunately it seems that this bugfix
This sounds more like a SeaMonkey support issue than a general security
issue. Adding support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
mailto:support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org. to addresss this issue.
--
Curtis Koenig
Mozilla Corp.
Security Program Manager
On 2012-02-16 14:23 PM, L Davis wrote:
Hi,
Even
Stéphane Grégoire wrote:
Hi,
Is Seamonkey 2.0.9 or Seamonkey 2.1b1 affected by this bug :
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/10/26/critical-vulnerability-in-firefox-3-5-and-firefox-3-6/
I
don't know for sure, but this may give some calm to SM users, at least
those on newer Windows
Hi,
Is Seamonkey 2.0.9 or Seamonkey 2.1b1 affected by this bug :
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/10/26/critical-vulnerability-in-firefox-3-5-and-firefox-3-6/
--
Stéphane
http://pasdenom.info
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
Stéphane Grégoire wrote:
Is Seamonkey 2.0.9 or Seamonkey 2.1b1 affected by this bug :
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/10/26/critical-vulnerability-in-firefox-3-5-and-firefox-3-6/
The 2.0 branch is affected for sure; it uses the same back-end as
Firefox 3.5. SeaMonkey 2.0.10 will be
Stéphane Grégoire schrieb:
Is Seamonkey 2.0.9 or Seamonkey 2.1b1 affected by this bug :
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/10/26/critical-vulnerability-in-firefox-3-5-and-firefox-3-6/
SeaMonkey 2.0.9 is affected and we are working on 2.0.10 right now to
fix it. SeaMonkey 2.1 Beta 1 is at
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9173698/Mozilla_confirms_critical_Firefox_bug
Any experts care to comment?
This problem only exists in Gecko 1.9.2 and higher, but SeaMonkey 2.0.x
uses 1.9.1.x, so our security update for a few other things stays
targeted for
Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:33:35 -0700, /NoOp/:
On 03/21/2010 03:03 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9173698/Mozilla_confirms_critical_Firefox_bug
Any experts care to comment?
Not an expert... but I suspect that the 2.0.4 testing request from kairo:
quote
If no
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608/
linked from the given Computerworld article:
*Update:* To clarify, as originally claimed this issue affects Firefox
3.6 only and not any earlier versions. Thunderbird and SeaMonkey are
On 3/22/2010 6:57 AM PT, Paul B. Gallagher typed:
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608/
linked from the given Computerworld article:
*Update:* To clarify, as originally claimed this issue affects
Firefox 3.6 only and not any earlier versions.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9173698/Mozilla_confirms_critical_Firefox_bug
Any experts care to comment?
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
On 03/21/2010 03:03 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9173698/Mozilla_confirms_critical_Firefox_bug
Any experts care to comment?
Not an expert... but I suspect that the 2.0.4 testing request from kairo:
quote
If no problems come up in testing those builds,
32 matches
Mail list logo