full-disclosure - [RHSA-2003:323-01] Updated Ethereal packages fix security issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200311101556.56824.chill@herber-hill.com>
From: chill at herber-hill.com (Charles E. Hill)
Subject: [RHSA-2003:323-01] Updated Ethereal packages fix security issues

On Monday 10 November 2003 09:55, bugzilla@...hat.com wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                    Red Hat Security Advisory
>
> Synopsis:          Updated Ethereal packages fix security issues
> Advisory ID:       RHSA-2003:323-01
> Issue date:        2003-11-10
> Updated on:        2003-11-10
> Product:           Red Hat Linux
> Keywords:          ethereal SOCKS buffer overflow
> Cross references:
> Obsoletes:         RHSA-2003:203
> CVE Names:         CAN-2003-0925 CAN-2003-0926 CAN-2003-0927

<snip>

Hmmm... two copies of this floated across the list.

One of them was listed as "GOOD, BUT UNTRUSTED" by my GPG setup, however the 
other was listed as "THIS SIGNATURE IS BAD".  Anyone else get this this?  Is 
this normal?  I don't usually see red -- bad signatures -- on the warnings.

-- 
Charles E. Hill
Technical Director
Herber-Hill LLC
http://www.herber-hill.com/