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

Re: Re : Lenny version info

Julien Patriarca wrote:
Maybe the all of that starting point was obviously out of the scope of this mailing list, but it seems to catch the interest of everyone seeing how many answers have been posted. Just stop with all that rubbish and get back to the main topic : security in Debian.

A good idea and I believe Matthias has a good point of discussion.

----- Reply message -----
De : "Matthias Faulstich" <faulstich@fh-swf.de>
Date : mar., déc. 14, 2010 07:13
Objet : Lenny version info
Pour : <debian-security@lists.debian.org>

Am Montag 13 Dezember 2010 schrieb Emanuele Petrucci :
> BTW here there are several methods,
> anyone giving you some information, some redundant:
> $ lsb_release -a
> $ cat /proc/version     ; # this largely include "uname -a"
> $ cat /etc/debian_version

Hi everyone!

That's funny!

I'm running Debian testing (as configured in /etc/apt/sourced.list).
lsb_release -a

No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Debian
Description:    Debian GNU/Linux testing-proposed-updates (sid)
Release:        testing-proposed-updates
Codename:       sid

A great question. Can the output of lsb_release be trusted? Is it authoritative or secure?

It looks like the "Codename" is incorrect including that part of the "Description". There are likely numinous explinations, sounds like a question for the release team. It should not be uncommon for one question to involve multiple groups.

Sighting my original answer it seams as though it may simply return the status of at best a handful of packages that could have been be upgraded or downgraded, perhaps, independent of the rest of the system.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: [🔎] 201012140713.19413.faulstich@fh-swf.de">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 201012140713.19413.faulstich@fh-swf.de

Reply to: