From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Apr 2 6:54:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from out3.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (out3.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.3.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A4537B574 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 06:54:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dpoland@execpc.com) Received: from judah (spira-2-46.mdm.fox.execpc.com [169.207.24.174]) by out3.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19306 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:54:16 -0500 From: "Doug Poland" To: Subject: RE: Lynx forbidden Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:54:15 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000402024251.A3917@kagan.quedawg.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:38:44AM -0600, Alan Clegg wrote: > > Out of the ether, Benjamin Lutz spewed forth the following bitstream: > > > Well, I still have a question though: Why was Lynx marked "forbidden" > > > at all, leading to misunderstandings? Or the standard unix user > > > expected to be able to do this basic kind of "hacking"? > > > > The lynx port is marked forbidden due to security problems. > > > > There is no misunderstanding. > > > > If you want to open yourself (and your users) up to buffer overflows in > > the code, you are more than welcome. > > > > AlanC > > In light of that is there a recommended replacement for lynx until > the security holes are worked out. Unfortunately I need something > to view html marked up emails in mutt. I am replaced linux with > freebsd on my home machine and I would like that same functionality. > What other programs are out there like lynx that I could use in my > .mailcap file to view html marked emails in mutt? > > TIA > > -- > Brian K. Walters > bkwalters@lucent.com > > Please forgive the ignorance of these questions... How does a cracker exploit (or create?) buffer overflows that makes lynx vulnerable? If I have lynx on my system, when am I at risk? Doesn't sysinstall use lynx to read on-line documentation? If it's so risky, why would the installation program use it? -- Doug Poland To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message