[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Question on LFS in Redhat
    On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 01:09:25AM +0000, Dale Amon wrote:
    > On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > You really shouldn't be running a 2.4.16 kernel (not without the latest
    > > security patches for such a kernel from a distro) given the amount of security issues
    > > fixed since... and since I don't think any distro ever shipped 2.4.16 (some
    > > shipped 2.4.17, a bunch shipped 2.4.18 but even RH doesn't do patches for
    > > that 2.4.18 tree anymore since they have been obsoleted by 2.4.20 and newer
    > > kernels).
    > Not really my choice... and from what you say I'd better
    > not *touch* their stock kernel if I a project for which I
    > specced that box happens.
    > Also, fresh feedback from the Consensys is that:
    > "Just to be precise - As of today the kernel
    > is 2.4.18-i59smp #1"

    can you ask them for the full source of this (including that of derived
    works they include in it) ? I'd be curious what stuff they include

    > So that is a little better but still a little out
    > of date. I'm not terribly worried about the local
    > exploit because you don't tend to want to allow external
    > login accounts on things on your SAN's...

    you forgot the remote hash-collision DoS issues in 2.4.18 etc etc

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.028 / U:3.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site