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

Re: Accepted atftp 0.6.2 (i386 source)

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:48:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:47:07PM -0400, Remi Lefebvre wrote:
> > Changes: 
> >  atftp (0.6.2) unstable; urgency=low
> >  .
> >    * Fixed local and remote buffer overflow (Closes: #196304)

> In the future, please upload security fixes with urgency=high.

I'm assuming this is only appropriate if the vulnerability affects
testing?  Since the main impact of setting the 'urgency' field is
affecting propagation time into testing, it doesn't seem appropriate to
give higher priority to a package which only suffered from a
vulnerability in the unstable version.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpdWwAjPmqQC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: