Re: [RHSA-2003:323-01] Updated Ethereal packages fix security issues

["Charles E. Hill" <chill () herber-hill com>]

On Monday 10 November 2003 09:55, bugzilla () redhat com wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                    Red Hat Security Advisory
>
> Synopsis:          Updated Ethereal packages fix security issues
> Advisory ID:       RHSA-2003:323-01
> Issue date:        2003-11-10
> Updated on:        2003-11-10
> Product:           Red Hat Linux
> Keywords:          ethereal SOCKS buffer overflow
> Cross references:
> Obsoletes:         RHSA-2003:203
> CVE Names:         CAN-2003-0925 CAN-2003-0926 CAN-2003-0927

<snip>

Hmmm... two copies of this floated across the list.

One of them was listed as "GOOD, BUT UNTRUSTED" by my GPG setup, however the 
other was listed as "THIS SIGNATURE IS BAD".  Anyone else get this this?  Is 
this normal?  I don't usually see red -- bad signatures -- on the warnings.

-- 
Charles E. Hill
Technical Director
Herber-Hill LLC
http://www.herber-hill.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html