From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gnu: cracklib: Fix CVE-2016-6318. Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:06:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20160823210635.GA23942@jasmine> References: <20160816232911.08c0835f@openmailbox.org> <20160817044429.qawlaeuly3hiwcod@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49391) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcIuG-0004cl-JG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:06:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcIuB-0006BV-TV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:06:47 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:45110) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bcIuA-00066c-Jb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:06:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160817044429.qawlaeuly3hiwcod@jasmine> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:44:29AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:29:11PM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:49:55 -0400 > > Leo Famulari wrote: > > > > > * gnu/packages/patches/cracklib-CVE-2016-6318.patch: New file. > > > * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. > > > * gnu/packages/password-utils.scm (cracklib)[source]: Use the patch. > > > --- > > > gnu/local.mk | 1 + > > > gnu/packages/password-utils.scm | 2 + > > > gnu/packages/patches/cracklib-CVE-2016-6318.patch | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/cracklib-CVE-2016-6318.patch > > > > LGTM! Thanks for getting the patch so quick. > > Thanks for the fast review! Pushed as 53dcbbec07c It seems this story is not over. SuSE identified another buffer overflow: http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/370 What do people think of the patch linked from that message?