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

[SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 2.5.12-118-gdc290da



The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit dc290da1ae01b3ae8847730571ceb4a97a75638f
Author: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Date:   Thu May 23 23:05:47 2013 +0200

    c/binaries: demote hardening-no-fortify-functions to wild-guess
    
    Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

diff --git a/checks/binaries.desc b/checks/binaries.desc
index 35dd1f1..cd8cd07 100644
--- a/checks/binaries.desc
+++ b/checks/binaries.desc
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ Ref: http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
 
 Tag: hardening-no-fortify-functions
 Severity: normal
-Certainty: possible
+Certainty: wild-guess
 Info: This package provides an ELF binary that lacks the use of fortified
  libc functions. Either there are no potentially unfortified functions
  called by any routines, all unfortified calls have already been fully
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 63697ed..724f3b4 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ lintian (2.5.13) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
     + [RA] Do not complain about kernel modules with no shared
       library dependency information.  Patch from Guillem Jover.
       (Closes: #706242)
+    + [NT] Demote the certainty of hardening-no-fortify-functions
+      to "wild-guess".  (Closes: #709415)
   * checks/changes:
     + [NT] Recognise "<dist>-backports-sloppy" as a valid
       distribution.  Thanks to Romain Francoise for the
diff --git a/t/tests/binaries-hardening/tags b/t/tests/binaries-hardening/tags
index 61a76aa..6c5d0c1 100644
--- a/t/tests/binaries-hardening/tags
+++ b/t/tests/binaries-hardening/tags
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
+I: binaries-hardening: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/weak
 I: binaries-hardening: hardening-no-stackprotector usr/bin/weak
-W: binaries-hardening: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/weak
 W: binaries-hardening: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/weak

-- 
Debian package checker


Reply to: