[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is kernel package out-of-date?



Martin C. a écrit :
> see any changes in that packagein 2.6.* kernels

The latest 2.6 kernel is found in kernel-image-2.6* packages.
Ex (for Pentium 4) : kernel-image-2.6-686 always depends
on the latest 2.6 kernel image available.
- In stable, it's version 101 [1] (2.6.8)
- In unstable, it's version 1:2.6.12-5 [2] (2.6.12)

PS As you'll notice, the kernel source package was renamed [3]
   from kernel-source* to linux-2.6 [4]

> http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-2617
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-2555

These 2 vulnerabilities [5,6] are pretty recent.
Debian kernel team is working on those [7], but this takes time.

> Should I use non-debian kernels or how can I do to update my debian
> kernel? with apt-get update and upgrade, never I got any update for
> this package.

It's your choice : 
a) Use Debian kernel images (easier, up-to-date slowly)
b) Build your own kernel images (not so easy, up-to-date quickly)

My 2 cents.

Ch.

[1] kernel-image-2.6-686 Stable: 101 (2.6.8)
http://packages.debian.org/stable/base/kernel-image-2.6-686
http://packages.debian.org/stable/base/kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686

[2] kernel-image-2.6-686 Unstable: 1:2.6.12-5 (2.6.12)
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/kernel-image-2.6-686
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6-686
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6.12-1-686

[3] DWN August 16th, 2005 -- Linux Kernel Source Package Rename
http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2005/33/

[4] Kernel source: linux-2.6
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/linux-2.6

[5] CAN-2005-2617 (Published Aug 25 2005) Fixed in kernel.org 2.6.13-rc4
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14661/info

[6] CAN-2005-2555 (Announced 01 Sep 2005) 
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/409674/30/0/threaded
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-169-1

[7] kernel - Rev 4134
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/dists/sid/linux-2.6/?op=log&rev=0&sc=0&isdir=1



Reply to: