On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:49:58 +0200, "Jan G.B." said: > And where's the point in reporting several projects that use a -say- > library which has a reported problem? (I mean, you've send quite the > same mail with a different software to bugtraq, today.) A few years ago, a rather nasty vulnerability was found in the zlib compression library. We then saw a whole raft of advisories for things that included the zlib libraries, because often the package shipped with a private copy of zlib so patching the system zlib did *not* actually fix the problem for the zlib-using package. And quite frankly, if it's a very low-level package, the average system admin may not even *realize* that his very important MobyFoo package that he remembers uses something called FooBar (or at least he remembers MobyFoo wanting FooBar when he installed it 3 years ago), and the year after that, FooBar started using QuuxBaz, which (a) the sysadmin didn't even know was installed on his box, and (b) has a security hole. You think I'm kidding? Even *after* some vigorous pruning, my Fedora laptop has 1,782 RPMs installed - back around Red Hat 9 it was more like 600. Lotta software bloat going on, and most sysadmins don't have the combo of time and clue to fight it. For instance, it's a losing battle to keep Bluetooth software off this laptop, even though it doesn't *have* Bluetooth hardware, because more and more packages link in Bluetooth "in case you have it". And not one of those package developers understands the concept of a linker "weak reference". Argh.
Attachment:
pgplWWUtdNdDi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/