From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 15 12:21:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C480837B843 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA76781; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:21:29 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA39122; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:20:51 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200005151920.NAA39122@harmony.village.org> To: Wes Peters Subject: Re: mktemp() vs. mkstemp() Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 15 May 2000 12:39:46 MDT." <39204472.706CB1D2@softweyr.com> References: <39204472.706CB1D2@softweyr.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 13:20:51 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <39204472.706CB1D2@softweyr.com> Wes Peters writes: : We could simply redefine mktemp to not be such a security hole. Do : common programs that use mktemp depend on side effects? mktemp cannot be defined such that it isn't a security hole. That's why mkstemp was invented. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message