SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

August 2008

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:17 +0200
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Roelof van der Kleij <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8
Subject:
From:
Roelof van der Kleij <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Organization:
ICT Gorlaeus
Content-transfer-encoding:
7BIT
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
This question was fully answered by troy in his post "openssh verified 
on sl4 and sl5" d.d. 08/22/2008 06:00 PM which just about crossed my post.

Roelof

John Summerfield wrote:
> Roelof van der Kleij wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> http://www.redhat.com/security/data/openssh-blacklist.html
>>
>> It seems someone got a hold of the redhat pgp signing keys and 
>> distributed compromised openssh rpm's  The check script tests for 
>> modified binaries.
>>
>> The article focuses on RHN not being compromised but is a bit vague 
>> about which channels were affected. Apparently some compromised 
>> openSSH rpm's are circulating in the wild.
>>
>> Just a question: is there any chance of SRPM being compromised, which 
>> would affect  SL and Centos?
>
> I see no reason to suppose that can have happened, but no doubt that 
> as a consequence of RH shipping new source packages, the clones will 
> follow suite.
>
> RH has not said that any source packages have been compromised; no 
> doubt that since it's said some binary packages are, it would also 
> have fessed out to any source problems. In any case, I expect that any 
> dud packages have vanished from the RH ftp servers, so why don't you 
> look and see what's there?
>
>
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2