Re: new suid-perl debian security update breaks qmail-scanner!

[Patrick Donker <list@webpagina.nu>]

Turbo Fredriksson wrote:

> Quoting Patrick Donker <list@webpagina.nu>:
>
>  
>
> > > I've made packages for my woody system(s):
> > > /pub/debian/dists/woody-ol2.2/source/Qmail/qmail-scanner_1.22-8.diff.gz
> > > /pub/debian/dists/woody-ol2.2/source/Qmail/qmail-scanner_1.22-8.dsc
> > > /pub/debian/dists/woody-ol2.2/source/Qmail/qmail-scanner_1.22-8_i386.changes
> > > /pub/debian/dists/woody-ol2.2/source/Qmail/qmail-scanner_1.22.orig.tar.gz
> > >
> > > They have this fix. The problem is that SUID perl script should NOT
> > > run '/usr/bin/suidperl' but only '/usr/bin/perl' (but be suid).
> > >
> > > In my package, I fix this and a whole lot more. I see no reason why the
> > > building of the 'binary' package shouldn't work on sarge...
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > Ok, where can I find these packages and do you also happen to have a
> > fixed 1.25? I could try and look at your packages to figure out how to
> > make the latest QS work.
> >    
>
> Sorry, the URL is 'ftp://ftp.bayour.com/...'.
>
> And I didn't even know that 1.25 existed. I've replaced QS with simscan.
> It was just not possible to run QS site-wite on my UltraSPARC III/750Mhz
> with 1Gb mem (go figure!! :).
>
> With simscan, everything is dandy!
>
>  
I was a bit quick sending 'thanks' :)
What I wanted to ask also is, do you recommend simscan over QS? I've 
read about it but dont know which is better....The box I am running my 
stuff on isnt very exciting either; P3 886 with 300something megs of 
ram. Yes I know, more mem should be put in, but that's something I had 
planned doing later...

-Patrick