Security Update vs Errata reporting with Yum
I'm likely going to feel very stupid after folks respond to this, but I have a somewhat pressing issue (re: GHOST and glibc).
My Satellite shows that I have no hosts affected by the RHSA-2015:0092 / RHSA-2015:0090 - Fair enough...
So, I have went directly to the host to see what's up...
# yum check-update glibc nscd Loaded plugins: product-id, rhnplugin, security, subscription-manager This system is not registered to Red Hat Subscription Management. You can use subscription-manager to register. This system is receiving updates from RHN Classic or RHN Satellite. Skipping security plugin, no data glibc.i686 2.5-123.el5_11.1 14wk25-rhel-x86_64-server-5 glibc.x86_64 2.5-123.el5_11.1 14wk25-rhel-x86_64-server-5 nscd.x86_64 2.5-123.el5_11.1 14wk25-rhel-x86_64-server-5 Obsoleting Packages firefox.i386 24.6.0-1.el5_10 14wk25-rhel-x86_64-server-5 firefox.i386 17.0.7-1.el5_9 installed firefox.x86_64 24.6.0-1.el5_10 14wk25-rhel-x86_64-server-5 firefox.x86_64 17.0.7-1.el5_9 installed # yum list-sec | egrep 'nscd|glibc' CLA-2013:1308 bugfix glibc-2.5-118.i686 CLA-2013:1411 security glibc-2.5-118.el5_10.2.i686 CLA-2013:1308 bugfix glibc-common-2.5-118.x86_64 CLA-2013:1411 security glibc-common-2.5-118.el5_10.2.x86_64 CLA-2013:1308 bugfix glibc-devel-2.5-118.x86_64 CLA-2013:1411 security glibc-devel-2.5-118.el5_10.2.x86_64 CLA-2013:1308 bugfix glibc-headers-2.5-118.x86_64 CLA-2013:1411 security glibc-headers-2.5-118.el5_10.2.x86_64 CLA-2013:1308 bugfix nscd-2.5-118.x86_64 CLA-2013:1411 security nscd-2.5-118.el5_10.2.x86_64
Yum list-sec seems concerned up to 2.5-118 - and yum check-update is reporting that 2.5-123 is available.
Does this seem correct? If so, why is 123 not considered a "security update". If not, what do you suppose is wrong in my environment? ;-)
This test host is actually subscribed to a clone created in week 25 of 2014, which I have pushed the glibc and nscd errata to (by simply using the add packages functionality). Should I have, instead, cloned security updates to the clone channel?
Responses