From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Jul 23  4:17:51 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from Awfulhak.org (gw.Awfulhak.org [217.204.245.18])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 09E8437B41C; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org)
Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12])
	by Awfulhak.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f6NBHZI04007;
	Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:17:35 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from brian@lan.Awfulhak.org)
Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f6NBHYg61233;
	Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:17:34 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org)
Message-Id: <200107231117.f6NBHYg61233@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>
Cc: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>,
	Brian Somers <brian@freebsd-services.com>,
	Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org>, aschneid@mail.slc.edu,
	ras@e-gerbil.net, roam@orbitel.bg, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG,
	freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bin/22595: telnetd tricked into using arbitrary peer ip 
In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> 
   of "Mon, 23 Jul 2001 03:20:02 PDT." <200107231020.f6NAK2f98702@freefall.freebsd.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:17:34 +0100
From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-security.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-security>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-security>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Matt wrote:
>  >     Pretty much our only option is to extend the size of existing fields
>  >     and take the 'oh hell the structure size changed' hit.

I wrote:
>  Ok, I agree.  I think we should bump UT_HOSTSIZE to 40 then and only 
>  put unscoped addresses in the field (ie, fec0::1, not fec0::1%vr0).
>  
>  Any disagreements ?  Should this be brought up (explained) on -arch 
>  now ?

Interestingly enough, OpenBSD has UT_HOSTSIZE set to 256.

-- 
Brian <brian@freebsd-services.com>                <brian@Awfulhak.org>
      http://www.freebsd-services.com/        <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !      <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>



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