I understood when Stephen said "Don't trust nessus scans" as I had also
mentioned in thi thread. Just that someone also mentioned in this thread
that "Nessus should not in general be ignored". Simply wanted to double
check that before arriving at a conclusion.
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Dalloz <ad+lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 08.08.2013 09:04, schrieb Anumeha Prasad:
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > I'd updated most of my rpms to CentOS 5.9. I'd even updated openssl
> > to openssl-0.9.8e-22.el5_8.4 (though now the latest is version
> > is openssl-0.9.8e-26.el5_9.1). My concern is that even upgrading openssl
> to
> > version openssl-0.9.8e-26.el5_9.1 might not solve my problem. This is
> > because the fix for vulnerability "SSL/ TLS Renegotion Handshakes MiTm
> > Plaintext Data Injection" was backported to openssl-0.9.8e-12.el5_4.6 as
> > per article:
>
> Sorry to say, but so far you fail to clearly understand that a tool like
> nessus just looks at the version tag it can get. It cannot see that the
> fix backported by Red Hat is incorporated into an openssl release which
> does not have this fix in upstream at the same version.
>
> That's why Stephen earlier said "Don't trust nessus scans". But you can
> trust what Red Hat publishes in their errata reports and CVE database.
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
