full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3F9C6C95.40806@hutley.net>
From: brett at hutley.net (Brett Hutley)
Subject: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security

Ted Unangst wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Brett Hutley wrote:
> 
> 
>>char buf[10];
>>const char *str1 = "OVER";
>>const char *str2 = "FLOW!!!!!";
>>sprintf(buf, "%s%s", str1, str2);
>>
>>Admittedly a contrived example. The best way to handle this type of
>>stuff is to provide "safe" functions - like a sprintfn() that takes the
>>maximum size of the buffer to write into as an argument. This function
>>is reasonably tricky to write however. Consider the following example:
> 
> 
> erm, snprintf?  the reasonably tricky to implement part is kinda true,
> there are/were many implementations which didn't do the right thing, but i
> think that's improved.

Sorry, yes, snprintf() *doh*

-- 
Brett Hutley [MAppFin,CISSP,SANS GCIH]
mailto:brett@...ley.net
http://hutley.net/brett