-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Michal Jaegermann wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:22:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 14:12 -0500, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote: >> >> >>> http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info >>> http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_136821.htm >>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5938475.html >>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1882889,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616 >>> >>> http://news.com.com/New+worm+targets+Linuxsystems/2100-7349_3-5938475.html?part=rss&tag=5938475&subj=news >>> >>> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/140203&tid=220&tid=106 >>> >> >> Does look like we need to patch this. RHEL issued an update, > > > Do you mean that one from August? > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-748.html CAN ids between > that one and http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info do not > agree although the latest worm descriptions would suggest that > RHSA-2005:748-05 is the correct one. > > Michal > > -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list The CVE website states that CAN-2005-2498 is not the same as CAN-2005-1921; so, I think to reason; both need to be fixed if we are vulnerable. James Kosin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDcmfnkNLDmnu1kSkRA39pAKCABlO6P3J7EVRAG6oefeclrPDEEwCeI2w0 U65qbkAwaJhCVlc+nNLt3ao= =11iK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
