Re: Red Hat released new elm package for RHAS 2.1

["Christian Pearce" <pearcec commnav com>]

Seth brings up an interesting issue.  If we don't have people interested in fixing a package, then it will still be vulnerable.  Should we keep track of this in bugzilla?  Just create a bug and tag it NOOWNER.  Or something like that?  This way we don't give people the idea that everything is fixed security wise if you use FedoraLegacy.

Just a thought.

--
Christian Pearce
http://www.commnav.com



seth vidal said:
> 
> On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 12:03, Bernd Bartmann wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > FYI: Besides the kdepim, cvs and httpd update for RHES3 Red Hat also
> > released updated elm packages for RHAS 2.1 that fix a buffer overflow
> > vulnerability in the 'frm' command. Please have a look at:
> > 
> > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-009.html
> > 
> 
> If there are admins out there who have users using elm or users who are
> using it who would like fix up a package and submit I'm sure it would be
> just fine. Personally, I don't have any of those users and I don't have
> the sparetime to spend on applications I don't use.
> 
> -sv
> 
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
>