Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:12:42 +0100
From:      Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
To:        Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>
Cc:        "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>, "'Brian Somers'" <brian@Awfulhak.org>, "'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, brian@Awfulhak.org
Subject:   Re: bin/22595: telnetd tricked into using arbitrary peer ip 
Message-ID:  <200107231012.f6NACgg60192@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
In-Reply-To: Message from Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>  of "Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:54:55 PDT." <200107230354.f6N3stj13517@earth.backplane.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>     All very nice, guys, but not realistic.  Only FreeBSD uses an API.
>     Third party programs access the structure directly for the most
>     part so adding new fields to the structure will just cause more
>     garbage to be written to the file (many third party programs 
>     don't bother to bzero the structure before writing it out).  We 
>     aren't going to add a separate hostname[] array... we just got
>     through ripping out the hostname crap, because there was never 
>     enough room in the field to actually store the FQDN, and many
>     programs don't bother to verify the forward against the
>     reverse anyway so the data would be suspect.  And short
>     of making a 200+ character array to hold it, which would be masive
>     bloat, there is no way to fit it in the structure.  If you want to store
>     host names for posterity you will have to log-process the file and
>     store the results somewhere else.  Every program under the sun assumes
>     utmp is a fixed-length structure.
> 
>     Pretty much our only option is to extend the size of existing fields
>     and take the 'oh hell the structure size changed' hit.

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 ?

> i						-Matt

-- 
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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200107231012.f6NACgg60192>