3.2-stable unleashed

Contributed by jose on 2002-11-05 from the update-already! dept.

tedu writes:

"Jason Wright just opened the 3.2-stable branch and commited several fixes. Notable among the changes are fixes for kadmind, pf, and several for apache. So if you just installed 3.2, you're not quite done yet. Patches for most things should be appearing on http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html too."

Thanks, Ted, I know a lot of users were curious about those fixes. Have a gander at -stable!

(Comments are closed)

Comments

By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-05 04:38

damn i love openbsd
By Noob () on 2002-11-05 05:29

Does that mean the release version has had known remote exploits for 4 days now?
By Newbie () on 2002-11-05 08:40

My main box have been 3.0->3.1 and will now be upgraded to 3.2. What shall i do with the apps from the ports tree (and other packages) that i installed under 3.0/3.1. Do i have to uninstall/reinstall the new version of the pkg or just leave it until something breaks? Will it break?
By Jedi/Sector One () j@pureftpd.org on 2002-11-05 11:50 http://www.pureftpd.org

and if you're brave enough, give a try to the UBC branch of the kernel.

Art seems to be working hard on it. I'm running it and nothing bad happened so far except a noticeable performance improvement. Great, great, great, definitively great!
By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-06 00:35

How can i see this new stuff through a browser?
By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-05 15:30

Not a single patch on http://www.openbsd.org/errata.htm

Typically, OpenBSD keeps security holes secret!
By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-05 17:04

From http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html:
"A buffer overflow can occur in the kadmind(8) daemon, leading to possible remote crash or exploit."

Then the claim "One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years!" should be updated to "Two remote holes in the default install, in nearly 6 years!"

If not I would like an explanation to why not.
By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-05 19:41

Are patches made for Apache when security holes are found?

I think I was forced to install Apace by hand since a patch wasn't released for a security issue with Apache.
By Bent () on 2002-11-06 08:07

"Jason Wright just opened the 3.2-stable branch and commited several fixes. Notable among the changes are fixes for kadmind, pf, and several for apache. So if you just installed 3.2, you're not quite done yet. Patches for most things should be appearing on http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html too."

Nice, but the pf and apache patches is still missing form http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html :(

When is it going to be updated?
If not then why not?
By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-06 16:46

001: SECURITY FIX: October 21, 2002

NO, I wasn't released on the 21. of October!
Why use wrong dates, maybe to hide something?

Latest Articles

Thu, Apr 18
- 05:05 Coming soon to a -current system near you: parallel raw IP input (0)
Wed, Apr 17
- 05:33 In -current, default write format for tar(1) changed to "pax" (9)
Wed, Apr 10
- 18:50 OpenSMTPD 7.5.0p0 Released (2)
Tue, Apr 09
- 04:49 20 years since "and we're just starting": undeadly.org turns 20 (2024-04-09) (13)
Fri, Apr 05
- 06:16 OpenBSD 7.5 released (2)
Thu, Mar 28
- 18:18 LibreSSL 3.8.4 and 3.9.1 released (0)
Tue, Mar 12
- 06:53 OpenSSH 9.7/9.7p1 released! (0)
Mon, Mar 11
- 11:28 Game of Trees 0.97 released (0)
Sun, Mar 10
- 09:06 LibreSSL versions 3.8.3 and 3.9.0 released (0)

Credits

Copyright © 2004-2008 Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]