TOS 4.2.43(ARM) is Released for Update

[StephenM]

After my previous 2 upgrades the authorised keys I had set up stopped working and I got locked out due to the PAM security.

There were a few hoops I had to jump through to reset the security and make symlinks to a differing set of home directories so that the authorised keys started working again.

[macmpi]

{L_BUTTON_AT}macmpi

We have received your suggestion and will discuss the feasibility.

Hi, any update? There is a serious 0-day CVE-2023-42464 fixed in Netatalk 3.1.17 on Sept 16th...

[TMzethar]

{L_BUTTON_AT}macmpi

Thank you for your reminder, there is no more information at the moment.

[macmpi]

{L_BUTTON_AT}macmpi

Thank you for your reminder, there is no more information at the moment.

How about nearly a month later later then? Yet a new CVE has been patched in 3.1.18 now...

[crisisacting]

{L_BUTTON_AT}TMzethar

With all these 0-day vulnerabilities explicitly in netatalk & the extra time + resources it takes your company to apply patches onto previous releases to bring them in line, please just remove it in the next patch or full 4.2.× release for the 210 device series.

Apple has deprecated AFP since Mac OS 11 Big Sur, it's time for TOS to do the same so the majority of users don't remain vulnerable, as the safety of 210 series users supersedes the ask of a handful.

[macmpi]

Apple has deprecated AFP since Mac OS 11 Big Sur,

Sorry but this is irrelevant statement and a bad interpretation of macOS AFP server deprecation in late versions.
netatalk is REQUIRED by TOS to support TimeMachine macOS clients backup, which is one selling point of TM product: would TM remove that feature, they would fail on a key product promise.

[sianderson]

Apple has deprecated AFP since Mac OS 11 Big Sur,

Sorry but this is irrelevant statement and a bad interpretation of macOS AFP server deprecation in late versions.
netatalk is REQUIRED by TOS to support TimeMachine macOS clients backup, which is one selling point of TM product: would TM remove that feature, they would fail on a key product promise.

to be fair one of TOS's big selling points was BTRFS and they backed out of that feature also on this system

[TMzethar]

{L_BUTTON_AT}sianderson

It is difficult to use a higher version of the kernel on the 210 series model, so it cannot fully support BTRFS. Due to data security reasons, we have already cancelled the support for BTRFS on the 210 series models.

[sianderson]

{L_BUTTON_AT}sianderson

It is difficult to use a higher version of the kernel on the 210 series model, so it cannot fully support BTRFS. Due to data security reasons, we have already cancelled the support for BTRFS on the 210 series models.

the point was that you released and marketed the 210 series as supporting BTRFS and it was one of the reasons to use a TM product because it supported it, and then only through experience of the product not working correctly did you remove the feature

[macmpi]

{L_BUTTON_AT}macmpi

Thank you for your reminder, there is no more information at the moment.

Any chance Santa may bring us some update, with relevant security patches and 4.4 kernel bump a bit closer to 4.4.302 (as elves won't craft anything higher I guess)?... Thanks for consideration for your ARM customers' shoes.