Displaying 15 results from an estimated 15 matches for "vulerable".
Did you mean:
vulnerable
2017 Aug 31
0
AST-2017-007: Remote Crash Vulerability in res_pjsip
Asterisk Project Security Advisory - AST-2017-007
Product Asterisk
Summary Remote Crash Vulerability in res_pjsip
Nature of Advisory Denial of Service
Susceptibility Remote Unauthenticated Sessions
Severity Moderate
2007 Apr 05
1
Extent of time zone vulerability for POSIX date and time classes
Hi.
I frequently convert date and time data to and from character
representations. I'm frustrated with chron, because 'seconds' are
required to create a time object (my input data never has seconds).
More importantly, I cannot make chron print the format 12/30/2006 (which
my output data requires).
I really like the format flexibility of strftime() and strptime(), but
of course
2016 Oct 17
3
Is bind-9.8.2-0.47.rc1.el6_8.1.x86_64 vulnerable
Hi
I'd like to know if the present version of Bind in CentOS 6 (bind-9.8.2-0.47.rc1.el6_8.1.x86_64) is vulerable to CVE-2016-2776.
According to https://www.isc.org/downloads/, version 9.8.x is End-of-Life (EOL) as of Sep 2014.
Regards
ian
2006 Sep 13
2
ports / www/linux-seamonkey / flashplugin vulnerability
Hi!
Since linux-flashplugin7 r63 is vulnerable according to
http://vuxml.FreeBSD.org/7c75d48c-429b-11db-afae-000c6ec775d9.html
isn't www/linux-seamonkey vulerable, too (it seems to include 7 r25)?
Bye
Arne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
2004 Sep 20
1
RE: Samba 'make install' chokes on textproc/expat2 & now openldap
At 14:24 9/19/2004, JohnsoBS@vicksburg.navy.mil, wrote:
>Personally, unless one has great need not to, I highly recommend upgrading
>to samba3 to start with. The perfomance gains alone I found well worth it.
>Plus if you plan to integrate into a network with 2k/XP/2K3, it will greatly
>improve compatibility.
OK. I tried to install samba 3.0.7,1. Got the same error:
2013 Aug 14
3
force ciphers order for clients
Hi Timo,
reading this
http://www.kuketz-blog.de/perfect-forward-secrecy-mit-apple-mail/
it looks like DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA can be forced in use
with apple mail
( if no ECDHE is possible ,by missing openssl 1.x etc,
seems that apple mail tries ECDHE first if fails its going to use
RSA-AES128-SHA )
force soltution as tried
ssl_cipher_list =
2008 Jun 22
6
Installing Rails
Having a god-awful time installing Rails. I started with the
instructions found on this page:
http://articles.slicehost.com/2007/11/23/ubuntu-gutsy-mysql-and-ror
I get the following error:
vbfischer@ubuntu:~$ sudo gem install rails
[sudo] password for vbfischer:
Bulk updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org/
Updating metadata for 13 gems from http://gems.rubyonrails.org/
2019 Dec 18
0
"ldap server require strong auth" and MS-AD
Hi everyone,
Microsoft is going to tighten their AD LDAP binding security in
mid-January 2020 [1][2].
I am wondering if this change is identical or similar to the "ldap
server require strong auth=yes" parameter in smb.conf. Or if it more
like "ldap server require strong auth=allow_sasl_over_tls".
From [1] :
"""
Summary
LDAP channel binding and LDAP
2005 Jan 28
1
fbsd not vulnerable to recent bind issues?
Hi,
Recently some security issues with bind have come up.
NetBSD patched it's version of 9.3.0:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2005/01/27/0009.html
Is the version in RELENG_5 not affected?
(ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind/9.3.0/9.3.0-patch1)
Bye,
Mipam.
2015 Nov 25
2
Glibc vulnerbality CVE-2015-1781
Hi,
We are using CentOS 5.5 as a base OS for one of our products.The version of
Glibc we are using was glibc-2.5-123.el5_11.1.
We wanted to see whether this glibc is vulerable to CVE-2015-1781. I have
gone through re-documentation & came across the following link
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-1781
In the link it is mentioned that, the CVE will not be fixed in Red-Hat 5
version. What does that mean? I mean, whether the RedHat 5 is vulnerable &
f...
2003 May 22
2
issue with ports
my ports database seems to have become broken. I'm running -stable, but
haven't rebuilt the system in a year or so (I know, security vulerabilities,
but the box has been shelved in this time).
anyhow, at this point, I can't do even a make clean in ports, or build
portupgrade. I fetched portupgrade with pkg_add hoping that running pkgdb -F
would sort things out, but it errors with:
**
2002 Jul 30
1
OpenSSL Security Advisory [30 July 2002]
Hi,
FYI - don't sue me for posting this here - I know, everyone who needs this info *should* have it already, but maybe not ;-)
Kind regards,
B. Courtin
--
OpenSSL Security Advisory [30 July 2002]
This advisory consists of two independent advisories, merged, and is
an official OpenSSL advisory.
Advisory 1
==========
A.L. Digital Ltd and The Bunker (http://www.thebunker.net/) are
2019 Sep 01
6
TLS questions
I am currently NOT using SSL on my Samba domain.
While reading "Configuring_LDAP_over_SSL_(LDAPS)_on_a_Samba_AD_DC" and
thinking about implementing. I'm having trouble "getting my head" around
what certificates go where.
Simply put, I am not clear as to generating certificates on the clients and
then copy which files to to the server or vice versa?
What happens when
2020 Nov 06
2
[DebugInfo] A value-tracking variable location update
...preserved an undef debug instruction in early-taildup, and my scripts picked
this up as dropping a location.
* 2 locations aren't tracked by InstrRefBasedLDV through a block that's
out of scope, meaning the location never covers instructions that are in
scope. VarLocBasedLDV is vulerable to this too, but MachineSink can drop a
DBG_VALUE on the far side of the scope gap, saving the location. See
"Limitations" below.
* 2 locations dropped during tail duplication: one in early-taildup which
I haven't tried to address yet (see "Limitations"), one in la...
2020 Nov 06
0
[DebugInfo] A value-tracking variable location update
...f debug instruction in early-taildup, and my scripts picked
> this up as dropping a location.
> * 2 locations aren't tracked by InstrRefBasedLDV through a block that's
> out of scope, meaning the location never covers instructions that are in
> scope. VarLocBasedLDV is vulerable to this too, but MachineSink can drop a
> DBG_VALUE on the far side of the scope gap, saving the location. See
> "Limitations" below.
> * 2 locations dropped during tail duplication: one in early-taildup which
> I haven't tried to address yet (see "Limitatio...