<div dir="ltr">I can confirm - it should be 2.73 across the board :)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Lonnie Abelbeck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@lonnie.abelbeck.com" target="_blank">lists@lonnie.abelbeck.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
On May 15, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Simon Kelley <<a href="mailto:simon@thekelleys.org.uk">simon@thekelleys.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Anyone running 2.67rc6 or 2.67rc7 should be aware that there's a<br>
> remotely exploitable buffer overflow in those trees. I just tagged<br>
> 2.67rc8, which includes the fix.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Simon.<br>
<br>
I think you meant to type 2.73rc6 ... 2.73rc7 ... 2.73rc8<br>
<br>
Fix buffer overflow introduced in 2.73rc6.<br>
<br>
Lonnie<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk">Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>