Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Delivered-To: info@awaresystems.be
Received: (qmail 7810 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2008 02:12:46 -0000
Received: from kudos.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.136.13])
          (envelope-sender <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
          by angelia.telenet-ops.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <info@awaresystems.be>; 30 Aug 2008 02:12:46 -0000
Received: from zimbu.telenet-ops.be (zimbu.telenet-ops.be [195.130.136.11])
	by kudos.telenet-ops.be (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m7U2CkvE002297
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:12:46 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by zimbu.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 756EA40004
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:12:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from circe.telenet-ops.be (circe.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51])
	by zimbu.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4A940007
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:12:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (r153.dmsolutions.ca [209.217.116.153])
	by circe.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A30F33E6A
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:12:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m7U28fZ1004941;
	Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:10:59 -0400
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m7U28cJD004938
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:08:38 -0400
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7U28ZSV006214;
	Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: Even Rouault <even.rouault@mines-paris.org>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL 
In-reply-to: <200808300053.35585.even.rouault@mines-paris.org> 
References: <200808300053.35585.even.rouault@mines-paris.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Even Rouault <even.rouault@mines-paris.org>
	message dated "Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:53:35 +0200"
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:08:35 -0400
Message-ID: <6213.1220062115@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 50 [XX]

Even Rouault <even.rouault@mines-paris.org> writes:
> I'm just curious about how vendors usually interact with libtiff upstream 
> team ? It would have been nice if they had dropped a word on it on libtiff 
> bugzilla...

Well, I showed this patch to Frank last week, and the RH security team
told me that they had spoken with "the libtiff developers" a couple
weeks before that; though I don't know exactly who they contacted.

Right at the moment I'm a bit miffed that no one is taking any interest in
http://bugzilla.maptools.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1936
which seems at least as severe from a security standpoint as those LZW
issues.

			regards, tom lane
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
