Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-21 Thread Frank-Rainer Grahl
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

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-20 Thread seemonkey
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:10:15 PM UTC+2, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: > 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. > >

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-19 Thread Ray_Net
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

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-18 Thread Frank-Rainer Grahl
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. Better check if the latest en-US candidate 2.46 test builds works for you or use

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-17 Thread seemonkey12345
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 > >>> version:

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-17 Thread TCW
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: >>> seemonkey12...@gmail.com wrote on 13/10/2016 08:06: There's at least one security vulnerability that

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-16 Thread Ray_Net
Lee wrote on 16/10/2016 17:45: On 10/16/16, Ray_Net 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

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-16 Thread Lee
On 10/16/16, Ray_Net 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 >> >> There was a bugfix

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-16 Thread Ray_Net
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 this

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-15 Thread Edward
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 There

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-15 Thread WaltS48
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

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-14 Thread seemonkey
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:

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-14 Thread seemonkey12345
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 > > > >There was a bugfix

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-14 Thread Edward
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

Re: Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-13 Thread TCW
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

Seamonkey 2.40 (latest stable) uses NSS 3.20.1 - possible security vulnerability

2016-10-13 Thread seemonkey12345
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 is