<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="http://dev1galaxy.org/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=6861&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Dev1 Galaxy Forum / Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
		<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=6861</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Question about Debian issuing patches.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:20:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52459#p52459</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Cups update came today.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Ron)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52459#p52459</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52447#p52447</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>The attack starts with a rogue computer spoofing a fake network printer. The attacked host is running a CUPS server and allows the fake network printer to execute arbitrary code on the server when trying printing with the fake printer.</p><p>So, the risk is higher for publicly opened networks with cups servers running. Private networks (i.e. behind a NAT) are at risk if authorized users (or intruders) set up a rogue computer for the attack inside the network.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (stopAI)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2024 10:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52447#p52447</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52445#p52445</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Note that <span class="bbc">cups-browsed</span> is only used for publishing the printers of your machine for use by other machines. It has nothing to do with how your machine connects to the printers.</p><p>You really don&#039;t need <span class="bbc">cups-browsed</span> at all. (One might possibly be able to draw up some use case where it could be close to useful, even if still not necessary). Just purge it.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (ralph.ronnquist)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2024 09:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52445#p52445</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52444#p52444</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>(Blatantly copied from a post by @johnraff on the bunsenlabs forums)</p><p>There&#039;s a mitigation shown on Debian&#039;s security tracker: <a href="https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-47176" rel="nofollow">https://security-tracker.debian.org/tra … 2024-47176</a></p><div class="quotebox"><blockquote><div><p>For client/desktop systems: Remove &#039;cups&#039; from the &quot;BrowseRemoteProtocols&quot; line in /etc/cups/cups-browsed.conf and restart the cups-browsed service.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>This seems to be what has been done in Debian&#039;s latest cups-filters upgrade - 1.28.17-5, currently in Sid, so should arrive in Bookworm and Trixie soon:<br /><a href="https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1082820#10" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … 1082820#10</a></p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (ceeslans)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2024 09:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52444#p52444</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52440#p52440</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for that. I guess it shouldn&#039;t be too much longer. (?)</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Ron)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 15:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52440#p52440</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52439#p52439</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hello. Check this:<br /><a href="https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/cups" rel="nofollow">https://security-tracker.debian.org/tra … ckage/cups</a></p><p>It is fixed in sid, but not fixed in testing and stable.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (stopAI)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 15:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52439#p52439</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Question about Debian issuing patches]]></title>
			<link>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52438#p52438</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>So a vulnerability in cups has been known for a couple of days now (<a href="https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-CVSS-9.9-Rating" rel="nofollow">link</a>). Some distros already made a patch for it. Does Debian usually lag behind the others in vulnerability issues like this one?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Ron)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=52438#p52438</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
