3 ms·
The author SAYS that, but that's ALL he says. There's nothing to back up the claim that the older versions are not a compromise in security. Are all known vulne
by cwyers 12y ago
The author SAYS that, but that's ALL he says. There's nothing to back up the claim that the older versions are not a compromise in security. Are all known vulnerabilities patched? Are security fixes backported?
- wangling2 12y agoAlmost never: which may causes issues likes thoses! : From Wikipedia & OpenBSD: The affected versions of OpenSSL are OpenSSL 1.0.1 through 1.0.1f (inclusive). Later versions (1.0.1g and ulterior ) and previous versions (1.0.0 branch and older) are not vulnerable. Installations of the affected versions are vulnerable unless OpenSSL was compiled with -DOPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEATS. same applies for : http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-19990414-ios-nat-acl http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurity... same applies for : https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secun... same applies for : http://www.debian.org/security/2000/20001013 http://www.debian.org/security/2000/20001013 same applies for : https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01015/0 https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01015/0 sticking to early versions (lazingly will save you)