• BlueBockser@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    The example CVE linked in the article is plausible, though. The server was reportedly running 2.4.57 and the CVE was fixed in 2.4.60, so it’s definitely present in the software. Whether it would actually be exploitable is a different question.

    Overall, I don’t get your point about stable releases and backports. Yes, security patches are backported, but that results in a new release (2.4.60 in this case) which still has to be updated to. It’s not like you can just stay on 2.4.57 and magically still have the fix, that’s just not how software versioning is done.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The server was reportedly running 2.4.57 and the CVE was fixed in 2.4.60, so it’s definitely present in the software.

      Overall, I don’t get your point about stable releases and backports.

      Clearly. Hint: it’s what Enterprise Linux has done for 20 years.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Distros may not update software versions when backporting some things, meaning they add a suffix they control to the version e.g. 2.4.57-ubuntu1.2 whatever, but the version reported by the software itself might still be 2.4.57.

      It depends on the release process. I was also confused once I was asking myself why the repo was reporting a CVE as fixed when it still showed the old version.