The issue was originally reported to us as affecting OpenSSH 6.8+
(reference: RedHat bugtracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384860), and therefore
9.3, 10.1 and 10.2 were not believed to be affected, so the "Affects:
All supported versions of FreeBSD" was a mistake in the original
advisory text.
We will investigate if the statement is true and will issue patches
for earlier FreeBSD releases, if they are confirmed to be affected.
The patch for 10.x can be amended (change "ssh_dispatch_set" to
"dispatch_set") to adapt to the earlier releases, by the way.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Vladimir Terziev
<Vladimir.Terziev at bwinparty.com> wrote:> Hi,
>
> if you look at the advisory, it states "Affects: All supported
versions of FreeBSD.", while in the "Corrected" section 10.1
& 10.2 are missing.
>
> They are still supported, so the fix for them must be developed or they
must be listed as not affected, if that's the case.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vladimir
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Gregory Orange <gregory.orange at
calorieking.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/16 16:39, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>>> Security advisories should state explicitly when otherwise
supported
>>> versions are not vulnerable. It's surprising this isn't
already the case.
>> I disagree. If none of the version I have installed are listed, I
don't read the rest of the advisory. Time saved. Listing them in a 'not
affected' part of the message would add complexity and parsing for me - less
time saved.
>>
>> Greg.
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-security at freebsd.org mailing list
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe at
freebsd.org"
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-security at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe at
freebsd.org"