[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Some more security issues in Lynx...
From: |
dickey |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Some more security issues in Lynx... |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:25:38 -0500 (EST) |
> Tom Dickey wrote:
>
> > > What is snprintf?
> > It is an 'sprintf' that allows you to specify a buffer limit. There's
> > a couple of flavors that it comes in (and they're incompatible). I guess
> > it's available on roughly half of the compilers people are using now.
>
> I would guess more like 80%.
maybe in terms of number of users - but there's a lot of odd systems
around. (it's in neither of VAX C nor DEC C, for instance).
> > (I don't believe it's either ANSI or POSIX - but it is present in Solaris).
>
> I could be mistaken, but I think snprintf() has made it into the latest
> Unix standards (the Open Group's Unix98, and presumably the underlying
> XPG4.2 standard).
good. that means it'll percolate through to 'older' systems in a couple
of years.
> > For our purposes, it's not useful - I don't want to truncate strings
> > just to avoid buffer overflow.
>
> That's true in some cases; there are others where snprintf() would
> certainly be useful. But in any case, it can be programmed around.
>
> Fixing these things one by one as they get slowly pointed out by bugtraq
> isn't ever going to fix the real problem. The entire Lynx code base
> needs to be gone over with appropriate tools (software or human mind)
> and fixed. Then, when it's clean, we have to keep an eye on keeping it
> that way.
I agree with that - but now that we're going into the beginning of a
new development cycle, I think it's time to visit some of those and
bite off another chunk. (There's also some display issues like the
text area that I know almost enough to do something about -- pruning
the code of some of the fixes such as buffer overflows and pathname
messes will let me read what's there more carefully).
But that's a short part of the cycle - once we get the initial bug
reports from 2.8.1 resolved and before getting bogged down in the
harder changes that we'll get into.
> I consider this all medium-distant-future stuff. The code base is too
> large for any one person to fully evaluate "in his spare time"...
>
> >Bela<
--
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
- Re: lynx-dev Some more security issues in Lynx..., (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev Some more security issues in Lynx...,
dickey <=