| Summary: | subversion security update | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mageia | Reporter: | Jérôme Soyer <saispo> |
| Component: | Security | Assignee: | QA Team <qa-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Normal | CC: | davidwhodgins, stewbintn, stormi-mageia |
| Version: | Cauldron | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Source RPM: | subversion-1.6.16-5.mga1.src.rpm | CVE: | |
| Status comment: | |||
|
Description
Jérôme Soyer
2011-06-02 12:01:45 CEST
*** Bug 1642 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** cve.mitre.org links: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-1752 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-1783 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-1921 Upstream has indicated that 1.6.17 corrects the issue, and Debian has released packages with 1.6.17. I am not finding any published POCs to test the issues. Randomly picking this as our first "official" update candidate for mga1, to walk through the process. CC:
(none) =>
stewbintn Still waking up I guess. This bug raises the question of how we handle for updates. Make a first exception and bump the version, or backport patches? Debian released old versions for some releases, presumably patched, so there should be patches we can use: For the oldstable distribution (lenny), this problem has been fixed in version 1.5.1dfsg1-7. For the stable distribution (squeeze), this problem has been fixed in version 1.6.12dfsg-6. I think bump the version, mga1 is already at 1.6.16, so just one point release. FWIW, subversion-1.6.17 has been in cauldron since 12th of June, on regressions AFAICS (i.e. I didn't see any, and no open reports in our bugzilla). Package with patchs from debian for cve-2011-1752, cve-2011-1783, cve-2011-1921 submitted to updates_testing. Status:
NEW =>
ASSIGNED From bug 1700, subversion-1.6.17 is already in 2010.1/2 main/updates, we'll have to update to that version to smooth upgrades. Regarding Comment 6, does that mean there is a further change coming, or should testing proceed? CC:
(none) =>
davidwhodgins Closing, because now things happen in bug #2239 (which was almost a duplicate but now is the one that gets the focus :)) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2239 *** Status:
ASSIGNED =>
RESOLVED
Nicolas Vigier
2014-05-08 18:05:18 CEST
CC:
boklm =>
(none) |