In message <20020629024032.B58B27C0D@berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Be
llovin" writes:
>In message <20020629011235.A94F14B25@coconut.itojun.org>, itojun@iijlab.net wr
>i
>tes:
>>>> >From download-vulnerability-list:
>>>> New vulnerability list (15224 bytes) is smaller than existing list (15232
>>>> bytes)
>>>> 
>>>> Was something removed intentionally, or is this bad?
>>>
>>>The bind-9.2.1 vulnerability line was removed, since bind-9.2.1 is not
>>>vulnerable IIUC. Normally, the file size should be increased anyway,
>>>but this seems to have been overlooked this time.
>>
>>	maybe i should have commented out the line instead?  sorry for
>>	confusion.
>
>Yes, absolutely -- download-vulnerability-list won't overwrite a list 
>with a shorter one.  I had to remove my old one manually.
>

The answer is simpler:  according to ISC, 9.2.1 is vulnerable -- see the
statement at http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-19.html


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)