|
|
BugTraq
RE: [Full-disclosure] RealVNC 4.1.1 Remote Compromise May 18 2006 11:04PM Krpata, Tyler (tkrpata bjs com) (1 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] RealVNC 4.1.1 Remote Compromise May 20 2006 12:22AM Matt Venzke (mvenzke gmail com) (1 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] RealVNC 4.1.1 Remote Compromise Jun 05 2006 05:08PM Tobias Kreidl (Tobias Kreidl NAU EDU) (1 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] RealVNC 4.1.1 Remote Compromise Jun 05 2006 11:33PM Kurt Seifried (bt seifried org) (2 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] RealVNC 4.1.1 Remote Compromise Jun 06 2006 10:10PM Ray Van Dolson (rayvd digitalpath net) (1 replies) Re: [Full-disclosure] RealVNC 4.1.1 Remote Compromise Jun 07 2006 06:07PM Jose Ramirez (jose ramirez dynet com mx) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> > How is it that even though this vulnerability has been known now for
> > some time, Red Hat still has not issued a new package or security update
> > that addresses this? On RHN, the most recent package I can find is
> > 4.0.0 beta and the most recent security patch for VNC dates back to
> > December 2004. Since Red Hat started distributing the package, why has
> > it not been kept up with?
>
> Probably because customers are not bugging them to much for it? I've never
> used vnc-server on Linux or seen it used to be honest, and although it is a
> nasty problem it's easy to deal with (just firewall it to trusted systems or
> wrap a VPN around it). They are obviously aware of this issue (it was fixed
> in Fedora Core 5, reported by Mark J. Cox).
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191692
RedHat Enterprise Linux comes with a beta version of RealVNC 4.0.0,
which is not affected by this vulnerability (as fas as I'm aware, only
version 4.1.1 was affected).
Fedora, on the other hand, had RealVNC 4.1.1 which is why a bug at
Bugzilla was filed for this.
Cheers,
Bojan
[ reply ]