[gentoo-dev] Heimdal in danger of being security masked

[gentoo-dev] Heimdal in danger of being security masked

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 434 bytes --]

Heimdal has an extremely critical remote vulnerability that may allow a 
complete system compromise.

We need to get this marked stable on x86 ASAP. If you're using Heimdal on x86 
please take Heimdal-0.6.3 for a whirl and report back on 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61412

If we have no stable marking in 24 hours it will be security masked.

Thanks

-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Heimdal in danger of being security masked

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:	[Wed Sep 15 2004, 12:17:46PM EDT]
> We need to get this marked stable on x86 ASAP. If you're using
> Heimdal on x86 please take Heimdal-0.6.3 for a whirl and report back

There's another problem with heimdal: it presently conflicts with
mit-krb5.  See bug 47138

It would be good for somebody to look at the Debian mit-krb5 and
heimdal packages to see how they manage the conflicting files.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Heimdal in danger of being security masked

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 276 bytes --]

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 18:53, Aron Griffis wrote:
> There's another problem with heimdal: it presently conflicts with
> mit-krb5.  See bug 47138

I guess this a problem of the past. Both packages provide virtual/krb5 and 
block each other this way.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Heimdal in danger of being security masked

[Thierry Carrez]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 18:53, Aron Griffis wrote:
>
>>There's another problem with heimdal: it presently conflicts with
>>mit-krb5.  See bug 47138
>
> I guess this a problem of the past. Both packages provide virtual/krb5
and
> block each other this way.

Rule is : if it works at least as well as the current stable version,
then the security-fix version should be marked stable.

Security stable marking is not the right moment to fix all pending bugs
on a package. Only regressions should prevent a package from getting a
security stable keyword.

- --
Koon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBSIEKvcL1obalX08RAnq6AJ427ehOy7Md92Cyhug5FLeKjONmjgCcCYGg
lMuKCYgKP8OQ3nmARFUdef0=
=sOgi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Heimdal in danger of being security masked

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 571 bytes --]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:	[Wed Sep 15 2004, 01:05:05PM EDT]
> I guess this a problem of the past. Both packages provide virtual/krb5 and 
> block each other this way.

Ah, good.  I didn't realize that had been fixed.

Thierry Carrez wrote:	[Wed Sep 15 2004, 01:51:06PM EDT]
> Rule is : if it works at least as well as the current stable
> version, then the security-fix version should be marked stable.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  The mention of heimdal just
brought the bug to mind.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]