Comments on: How to Fix SambaCry Vulnerability (CVE-2017-7494) in Linux Systems https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vulnerability-cve-2017-7494-in-linux/ Tecmint - Linux Howtos, Tutorials, Guides, News, Tips and Tricks. Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:14:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gabriel A. Cánepa https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vulnerability-cve-2017-7494-in-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-895926 Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:14:32 +0000 https://www.tecmint.com/?p=25760#comment-895926 In reply to parichehr.

The error is self-explanatory. You will also need to install one of the GnuTLS packages.

]]>
By: parichehr https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vulnerability-cve-2017-7494-in-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-895589 Sat, 17 Jun 2017 08:16:12 +0000 https://www.tecmint.com/?p=25760#comment-895589 Hi ,
I’m trying to update samba based on your article. But after ./configure command i faced an error:
/root/samba-4.6.5/source4/lib/tls/wscript:51: error: Building the AD DC requires GnuTLS (eg libgnutls-dev, gnutls-devel) for ldaps:// support and for the BackupKey protocol

Best regard,

]]>
By: Tiago https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vulnerability-cve-2017-7494-in-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-893055 Wed, 31 May 2017 17:31:19 +0000 https://www.tecmint.com/?p=25760#comment-893055 In reply to Gabriel A. Cánepa.

Thank’s @Matei

]]>
By: Gabriel A. Cánepa https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vulnerability-cve-2017-7494-in-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-892762 Tue, 30 May 2017 12:07:07 +0000 https://www.tecmint.com/?p=25760#comment-892762 In reply to Tiago.

It depends on what Samba version you’re currently using in RHEL 6. If you’re using Samba 3, yes, the fixed version is 3.6.23. If you are using Samba 4, then it is samba4-4.2.10-10.el6_9. More details under the Red Hat Security Errata section here: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2017-7494.

]]>
By: Ravi Saive https://www.tecmint.com/fix-sambacry-vulnerability-cve-2017-7494-in-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-892701 Tue, 30 May 2017 05:03:33 +0000 https://www.tecmint.com/?p=25760#comment-892701 In reply to Gabriel A. Cánepa.

@Gabriel and @Matei,

Added the note before the Summary line in the article.

Thanks @Matei

]]>