Re: [Updated] [FLSA-2006:186277] Updated sendmail packages fix security issue

Adam Gibson <agibson@xxxxxxx> · Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:05:19 -0400

David Eisenstein wrote:

Adam Gibson wrote:

One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
the sendmail package.  <<snip>>

So basically it boils down to alternatives with the newer sendmail
updates do not do anything with /etc/pam.d/smtp anymore(It is part of
the packages itself and not a symlink).  The problem I had is that the
old symlink was in the way when sendmail was updated.

My take, judging from previous comments you've posted, Adam, is that you run
the Red Hat 9 version of sendmail?

Correct.  I realized that I did not include an OS version after 

submitting the second email and didn't want to send a third reply.  Good 

guess :).

...

To fix this bug in RH9's sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy (similarly in
FC1's), we elected to revert the alternatives behavior to what it had
been in sendmail-8.12.8.  The various scenarios might be, then:
   c)  User is using 8.12.8, upgraded to 8.12.11-4.24.1.  Same problems as
       (b).  User either fixes this by hand (by making a symlink /etc/pam.d/
       smtp -> smtp.sendmail &c) or fixes this using the "alternatives
       --config mta" command, as suggested by Marc in
       <http://tinyurl.com/jdwko>.  If user does either of these two things, a
       later upgrade to sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.3 will break /etc/pam.d/smtp,
       causing it to point to a non-existent /etc/pam.d/smtp.sendmail, and
       create /etc/pam.d/smtp.rpmnew.  This one, I think, would have been your
       scenario, Adam.  You have provided a good workaround for this.

That is precisely what I saw.  Thanks.

Hope this helps explain the situation, Adam.  It was a mess, and we did the
best we knew to fix it.  Sorry for the trouble it has caused.

The problems were relatively minor.  I was just posting the information 

mainly in case others experienced the same issue so they would know of a 

fix.  I am surprised that you were able to decipher the 2 previous 

emails...  It was very confusing even trying to explain the symlink 

because the symlink in question points to a symlink which points to a 

missing file :).

Thanks for the reply.  I really didn't expect a reply that explained 

things as well as you did.

--

fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list