Slashdot carried this story yesterday on a BIND vulnerability:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/0028231/New-DoS-Vulnerability-In-All-Versions-of-BIND-9
The upstream report:
Red Hat's Bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514292
From what I'm reading, if one has an Internet-facing master for a zone, one
is vulnerable, even if dynamic DNS isn't being used.
On 07/29/2009 05:15 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
From what I'm reading, if one has an Internet-facing master for a zone, one is vulnerable, even if dynamic DNS isn't being used.
yes, which is one of many reasons why a zone masters is usually setup to not be publicly available.
On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yes, which is one of many reasons why a zone masters is usually setup to not be publicly available.
The localhost 127.0.0.1 zone can also be used as an attack vector according to the folks on the DNS Ops list, so it's looking like pretty much every bind installation will need to be updated.
--Chris
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 02:10:56PM -0500, Chris Boyd wrote:
On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yes, which is one of many reasons why a zone masters is usually setup to not be publicly available.
The localhost 127.0.0.1 zone can also be used as an attack vector according to the folks on the DNS Ops list, so it's looking like pretty much every bind installation will need to be updated.
--Chris
Do you have a link to a mailing lists post describing this? Would like to pass it along...
Ray
On Jul 29, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Do you have a link to a mailing lists post describing this? Would like to pass it along...
This is the head of the thread:
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2009-July/004315.html
Some of the relevant discussion:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 06:21:22PM -0700, Peter Losher plosher@isc.org wrote a message of 30 lines which said:
"Testing indicates that the attack packet has to be formulated against a zone for which that machine is a master. Launching the attack against slave zones does not trigger the assert.
We tested that removing the zones which are typically there by default, and in mode master (such as localhost and 0.0.127.in-addr.arpa) works fine: the published exploit no longer works afterwards.
This can be an interim solution for those who don't have a clean upgrade path (for instance, RHEL did not push the patch yet). _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
=================================================
like, for example, .localhost or 0.0.127.in-addr.arpa.
--bill
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:47:46PM +0200, Michael Graff wrote: A purely cache only server should not be affected. Being auth for a single zone would make you be vulnerable.
--Michael
On Jul 28, 2009, at 23:26, Duane Wessels wessels@dns-oarc.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Keith Mitchell wrote:
dns_db_findrdataset() fails when the prerequisite section of the dynamic update message contains a record of type ?ANY? and where at least one RRset for this FQDN exists on the server.
Does it affect only installations with authoritative data? Or are caches affected as well?
DW _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations _______________________________________________
=================================================
Tom Daly wrote: A purely cache only server should not be affected. Being auth for a single zone would make you be vulnerable.
Some quick and dirty research/testing on our side indicates that being an authoritative slave doesn't make you vulnerable either, it is only if you are authoritative master, i.e.:
zone blat.com { type master; ... };
Our (FreeBSD) testing indicates the same.
Then again, if you choose to be RFC1912 compliant, you probably made yourself vulnerable.
Unfortunately for this issue I added 1912 plus a bunch of other default zones to our default resolver config, so if you use our stuff out of the box you are vulnerable.
Doug _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
Kenneth Porter wrote:
Slashdot carried this story yesterday on a BIND vulnerability:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/0028231/New-DoS-Vulnerability-In-All-Versions-of-BIND-9
According to a commenter, this should provide a temporary countermeasure:
iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DROP -m u32 --u32 '30>>27&0xF=5'
Haven't tested it, would like to know the results...
Glenn
The upstream report:
Red Hat's Bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514292
From what I'm reading, if one has an Internet-facing master for a zone, one
is vulnerable, even if dynamic DNS isn't being used. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
RedShift napsal(a):
According to a commenter, this should provide a temporary countermeasure:
iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DROP -m u32 --u32 '30>>27&0xF=5'
Haven't tested it, would like to know the results...
Well, good point, but Centos does not ship libipt_u32.so. Even more Centos 4.x is now undergoing rebuild process, so no updates even security updates are being released. Which is something I can accept.
Those looking for patched bind for Centos 4.x may use packages I have built with CVE-2009-0696 patch. http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/i386/repoview/letter_b.group.html http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/x86_64/repoview/letter_b.group.html
Regards, David Hrbáč
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, David Hrbáčhrbac.conf@seznam.cz wrote:
RedShift napsal(a):
According to a commenter, this should provide a temporary countermeasure:
iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DROP -m u32 --u32 '30>>27&0xF=5'
Haven't tested it, would like to know the results...
Well, good point, but Centos does not ship libipt_u32.so. Even more Centos 4.x is now undergoing rebuild process, so no updates even security updates are being released. Which is something I can accept.
Those looking for patched bind for Centos 4.x may use packages I have built with CVE-2009-0696 patch. http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/i386/repoview/letter_b.group.html http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/x86_64/repoview/letter_b.group.html
Well done, David but there's a little problem with those rpms: Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package bind-libs-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-libs-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed package bind-utils-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-utils-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed package bind-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed package bind-chroot-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-chroot-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed Maybe you can bump the version a bit.
Regards, David Hrbáč
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/29/2009 06:29 PM, Lucian@lastdot.org wrote:
Those looking for patched bind for Centos 4.x may use packages I have built with CVE-2009-0696 patch. http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/i386/repoview/letter_b.group.html http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/x86_64/repoview/letter_b.group.html
there are packages linked to people.redhat.com that point at the ones in QA at Red Hat at the moment, I would recommend you use those
On Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:36 PM +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
there are packages linked to people.redhat.com that point at the ones in QA at Red Hat at the moment, I would recommend you use those
RHEL errata are up:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Via RHSA-2009:1179 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1179.html
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Via RHSA-2009:1180 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1180.html
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Karanbir Singhmail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 07/29/2009 06:29 PM, Lucian@lastdot.org wrote:
Those looking for patched bind for Centos 4.x may use packages I have built with CVE-2009-0696 patch. http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/i386/repoview/letter_b.group.html http://fs12.vsb.cz/hrb33/el4/hrb/testing/x86_64/repoview/letter_b.group.html
there are packages linked to people.redhat.com that point at the ones in QA at Red Hat at the moment, I would recommend you use those
Ok, thanks, but where exactly am I to see something useful on people.redhat.com? I can only see an image.
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/29/2009 08:27 PM, Lucian@lastdot.org wrote:
where exactly am I to see something useful on people.redhat.com? I can only see an image.
The CentOS update have now been released, you should be able to yum update on C5 already.
On 07/29/2009 10:15 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: ...
The CentOS update have now been released, you should be able to yum update on C5 already.
Thanks!
On my C5 server:
# rpm -qa bind bind-9.3.4-10.P1.el5_3.3
On my RHEL 5 server:
# rpm -qa bind bind-9.3.4-10.P1.el5_3.1 # yum clean all # yum update ... Setting up Update Process No Packages marked for Update
CentOS quicker than upstream? :-)
Mogens
Lucian@lastdot.org napsal(a):
Ok, thanks, but where exactly am I to see something useful on people.redhat.com? I can only see an image.
Maybe he is pointing to http://people.redhat.com/atkac/bind/. But I do not see the point. This is RHEL 4.8 version with patch. Anyone running Centos 4.8? I'm still with 4.7 so bind-libs-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 with patch is the way for me, far better then having unpatched bind, waiting another couple of weeks to get bind updated finally. Sorry. David Hrbáč
On 07/29/2009 09:19 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
Maybe he is pointing to http://people.redhat.com/atkac/bind/. But I do not see the point. This is RHEL 4.8 version with patch.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2009-July/004794.html
I've updated 2 machines, and had no problems here. But some wider testing would be good and we can get them into the main repos so more people benefit.
David HrbÃ¡Ä wrote:
Maybe he is pointing to http://people.redhat.com/atkac/bind/. But I do not see the point. This is RHEL 4.8 version with patch. Anyone running Centos 4.8? I'm still with 4.7 so bind-libs-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 with patch is the way for me, far better then having unpatched bind, waiting another couple of weeks to get bind updated finally. Sorry.
4.8 packages for the most part should install on 4.7 w/o a fuss. I installed 4.6 packages on 4.4 for quite some time, and I install some 5.3 packages on 5.2 without any issues. One of the nice things about a stable(binary compatibility) distro.
nate
Lucian@lastdot.org napsal(a):
Well done, David but there's a little problem with those rpms: Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package bind-libs-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-libs-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed package bind-utils-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-utils-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed package bind-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed package bind-chroot-9.2.4-30.el4_7.2 (which is newer than bind-chroot-9.2.4-30.el4.hrb.2.1) is already installed Maybe you can bump the version a bit.
Right... 30.el4_7.2 > 30.el4.hrb.2.1 :o) I do not want to change the version more because: - I do not want to have el4_7, it's not Centos release - EL4.8 ships 30.el4_8.4
So I do not want to release 31.el4_7.2 ...
As to included patch, it the very same code RH released within the latest errata. Regards, David
Been watching the bind thing for a few days and waiting for my daily yum to update. Finally did it by hand and got an interesting message.
The python dependency killed my yum...lol. A quick look online and I see a few thousand fedora and redhat issues with this python thing. Strange that it is trying to install a package update only to find that package is not there..... Yeesh
But was able to run yum update bind and get the issues resolved.
--> Running transaction check ---> Package python.x86_64 0:2.4.3-24.el5_3.6 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxslt-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: gamin-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxml2-python --> Finished Dependency Resolution libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed)
yum clean all
financial.com AG
Munich head office/Hauptsitz München: Maria-Probst-Str. 19 | 80939 München | Germany Frankfurt branch office/Niederlassung Frankfurt: Messeturm | Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 49 | 60327 Frankfurt | Germany Management board/Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Boehnert (CEO/Vorsitzender) | Dr. Alexis Eisenhofer | Dr. Yann Samson | Matthias Wiederwach Supervisory board/Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Dr. Ernst zur Linden (chairman/Vorsitzender) Register court/Handelsregister: Munich – HRB 128 972 | Sales tax ID number/St.Nr.: DE205 370 553
Bob Hoffman wrote:
Been watching the bind thing for a few days and waiting for my daily yum to update. Finally did it by hand and got an interesting message.
The python dependency killed my yum...lol. A quick look online and I see a few thousand fedora and redhat issues with this python thing. Strange that it is trying to install a package update only to find that package is not there..... Yeesh
But was able to run yum update bind and get the issues resolved.
--> Running transaction check ---> Package python.x86_64 0:2.4.3-24.el5_3.6 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxslt-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: gamin-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxml2-python --> Finished Dependency Resolution libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I found that for all three of my bind servers that it needed yum clean all yum update to find the updates and install - no issues with py. HTH rob
Bob Hoffman wrote:
Been watching the bind thing for a few days and waiting for my daily yum to update. Finally did it by hand and got an interesting message.
The python dependency killed my yum...lol. A quick look online and I see a few thousand fedora and redhat issues with this python thing. Strange that it is trying to install a package update only to find that package is not there..... Yeesh
But was able to run yum update bind and get the issues resolved.
--> Running transaction check ---> Package python.x86_64 0:2.4.3-24.el5_3.6 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxslt-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: gamin-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxml2-python --> Finished Dependency Resolution libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed)
_
Try doing: yum clean all && yum update
That did it for me.
Thanks goes to John R. Dennison for the fix.
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Bob Hoffman wrote:
Been watching the bind thing for a few days and waiting for my daily yum to update. Finally did it by hand and got an interesting message.
The python dependency killed my yum...lol. A quick look online and I see a few thousand fedora and redhat issues with this python thing. Strange that it is trying to install a package update only to find that package is not there..... Yeesh
But was able to run yum update bind and get the issues resolved.
--> Running transaction check ---> Package python.x86_64 0:2.4.3-24.el5_3.6 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxslt-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: gamin-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxml2-python --> Finished Dependency Resolution libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed)
_
Try doing: yum clean all && yum update
That did it for me.
Thanks goes to John R. Dennison for the fix.
The "fix" has been available for a long time:
Ned Slider wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Bob Hoffman wrote:
Been watching the bind thing for a few days and waiting for my daily yum to update. Finally did it by hand and got an interesting message.
The python dependency killed my yum...lol. A quick look online and I see a few thousand fedora and redhat issues with this python thing. Strange that it is trying to install a package update only to find that package is not there..... Yeesh
But was able to run yum update bind and get the issues resolved.
--> Running transaction check ---> Package python.x86_64 0:2.4.3-24.el5_3.6 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxslt-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: gamin-python --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 for package: libxml2-python --> Finished Dependency Resolution libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxslt-python-1.1.17-2.el5_2.2.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package libxml2-python-2.6.26-2.1.2.7.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/lib64/python2.4 is needed by package gamin-python-0.1.7-8.el5.x86_64 (installed)
_
Try doing: yum clean all && yum update
That did it for me.
Thanks goes to John R. Dennison for the fix.
The "fix" has been available for a long time:
I'm not sure that is the 'fix'. My systems were completely up-to-date as of last week so I should not have had a problem with that. And yet I did.
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
The "fix" has been available for a long time:
I'm not sure that is the 'fix'. My systems were completely up-to-date as of last week so I should not have had a problem with that. And yet I did.
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-3.el5
What do you have?
CentOS has not release this update.
Ned Slider wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
The "fix" has been available for a long time:
I'm not sure that is the 'fix'. My systems were completely up-to-date as of last week so I should not have had a problem with that. And yet I did.
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-3.el5
What do you have?
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-2.el5
CentOS has not release this update.
Ah. That explains it.
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
The "fix" has been available for a long time:
I'm not sure that is the 'fix'. My systems were completely up-to-date as of last week so I should not have had a problem with that. And yet I did.
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-3.el5
What do you have?
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-2.el5
CentOS has not release this update.
Ah. That explains it.
You can get it from here:
http://elrepo.org/linux/fasttrack/el5/
or you can wait for 5.4 to be released which will contain this update.
On 07/30/2009 10:32 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
The "fix" has been available for a long time:
I'm not sure that is the 'fix'. My systems were completely up-to-date as of last week so I should not have had a problem with that. And yet I did.
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-3.el5
What do you have?
$ rpm -q yum-metadata-parser yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-2.el5
CentOS has not release this update.
Ah. That explains it.
You can get it from here:
http://elrepo.org/linux/fasttrack/el5/
or you can wait for 5.4 to be released which will contain this update.
Thank you !
-
Benjamin Franz -
Bob Hoffman -
Chris Boyd -
Christoph Maser -
Codrin Cean -
David Hrbáč -
Karanbir Singh -
Kenneth Porter -
Lucian＠lastdot.org -
Mogens Kjaer -
nate -
Ned Slider -
Ray Van Dolson -
RedShift -
Rob Kampen