Subject: Uploaded: mount 2.5l-1

From: Rob Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:11:35 -0400

Uploaded to master.debian.org.

This is the author's own response to the mount/umount security issues, and so
should replace the previous 2.5k-1 release which incorporated unofficial
patches.

Bruce, would you like to respond to the recent inquiry about Debian's
vulnerability status with regard to mount/umount, mentioning that all versions
prior to 2.5k-1 are vulnerable and recommending 2.5l-1 as the official remedy
(as soon as it has been placed into the archive)? Or if you'd prefer I prepare
something, please let me know. Thanks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Date: 19 Aug 96 03:23 UT
Format: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: Low
Maintainer: Robert Leslie <[email-masked]>
Source: mount
Version: 2.5l-1
Binary:  mount
Architecture:  i386 source
Description: 
 mount: Tools for mounting and manipulating filesystems.
Changes: 
 * New upstream version.
Files:
 78dc8abbd116d67f69d5c99e2d1b86bc  53374  base  -  mount_2.5l-1.tar.gz
 1b7cec2510e8470012fb2c9a1a3f5e92  3116  base  -  mount_2.5l-1.diff.gz
 6672530030f9a6c42451ace74c7510ca  41470  base  required  mount_2.5l-1_i386.deb

-- 
Robert Leslie
[email-masked]

---

From: Mr Stuart Lamble <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:46:52 +1000 (EST)

[snipped]
> Urgency: Low
           ^^^

Where a security fix is involved, shouldn't the urgency be a little bit
higher than "low"? (especially where the problem affects many systems.)