On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:01:01PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Libvirt Security Notice: LSN-2016-0001 ======================================
Summary: Authentication disabled when setting empty VNC password Reported on: 20130531 Published on: 20130531 Fixed on: 20160630 Reported by: Vivian Zhang <vivianzhang@redhat.com> Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> Patched by: Jiri Denemar <jdenemar@redhat.com> See also: CVE-2016-5008
Branch: v1.3.1-maint Broken in: v1.3.3.1 Broken by: 9d73efdbe3ea61a13a11fdc24a2cb530eaa0b66f Fixed by: 2d5370eba6b52f44cf832eba28f162c55331a47c
Branch: v1.3.3-maint Broken in: v1.3.3.1 Broken by: 9d73efdbe3ea61a13a11fdc24a2cb530eaa0b66f Fixed by: 881441f84a30cd3921df313a982f7162d7ca04f4
I just want to make sure my guess is right. We don't have 1.3.2-maint branch, so it wasn't back-ported there. Does that mean we will never need such branch, hence we're fine; or does it mean that we should add a branch for the CVE fix just in case someone wants to back-port other fix to 1.3.2 and creates it -- so that it is not vulnerable?
My guess is that we won't have 1.3.2 but we should rather be safe...
I simply applied to all branches listed in origin. Yes, we should really create a 1.3.2 branch, and any other missing branches, so we can get the security fixes on all branches. IMHO, we should switch to creating the -maint branch at time of each release,instead of waiting until we need it. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|