[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection

From: Anthony J. Bentley
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:45:50 -0700

Hi Ken,

Ken Hornstein writes:
> >The "brokenness" is that OpenBSD simply doesn't implement utmpx, because
> >it's seen as an unsafe and insecure interface. OpenBSD aren't the only ones
> >who feel this way (the musl C library also doesn't support utmpx, for the
> >same reasons: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/03/04/4).
> I'd find the "security" arguments more compelling if OpenBSD didn't
> implement utmp, which has (as far I can tell) the same security issues.

Well, I'm just repeating what I've heard elsewhere. I am not familiar
with how utmp{,x} works myself. utmp is no doubt kept around because
existing software demands it, and the implementation is mature enough
to not have known holes.

> >As far as I know the behavior of the utmpx functions are not defined by
> >POSIX either.
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696899/functions/endutxent.html

And on that page utmpx is marked as an XSI extension. To my understanding
those are optional and not required to be implemented in POSIX-compliant

Anthony J. Bentley

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]