From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Nov 23 17: 3:13 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D9F04154CC; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:03:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03781;
	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:02:59 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>,
	peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: FreeBSD security auditing project. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:26:26 PST."
             <19991123142626.D49964@dragon.nuxi.com> 
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:02:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3778.943405379@localhost>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> This means nothing out of context.  I hope we don't go on a witch hunt.

No, but there is some merit to simply replacing these so that they
don't show up on our radar later.  I don't see any reason, for
example, why anyone should still be using gets() and our
implementation even gets whiney about it if you do.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message