On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 01:09:25AM +0000, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > You really shouldn't be running a 2.4.16 kernel (not without the latest
> > security patches for such a kernel from a distro) given the amount of security issues
> > fixed since... and since I don't think any distro ever shipped 2.4.16 (some
> > shipped 2.4.17, a bunch shipped 2.4.18 but even RH doesn't do patches for
> > that 2.4.18 tree anymore since they have been obsoleted by 2.4.20 and newer
> > kernels).
> 
> Not really my choice... and from what you say I'd better
> not *touch* their stock kernel if I a project for which I 
> specced that box happens.
> 
> Also, fresh feedback from the Consensys is that:
> 
> 	"Just to be precise - As of today the kernel 
> 	 is 2.4.18-i59smp #1"

can you ask them for the full source of this (including that of derived
works they include in it) ? I'd be curious what stuff they include

> So that is a little better but still a little out
> of date. I'm not terribly worried about the local
> exploit because you don't tend to want to allow external
> login accounts on things on your SAN's...

you forgot the remote hash-collision DoS issues in 2.4.18 etc etc