In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : I still think this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. 8) We mildly disagree here. The strl* functions are the end all, be all of security. They are just designed to make the existing code that uses static buffers easy to make more robust w/o radically altering that code. Of course, strings have always been weak in 'C'. You make them static and they overflow. You malloc them, and often people forget to free them later leading to other problems... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Julian Elischer
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Paul Hart
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Paul Hart
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Julian Elischer
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Warner Losh
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Warner Losh
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Warner Losh
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlc... Valentin Nechayev
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Warner Losh
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Mike Smith
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Tim Vanderhoek
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Warner Losh
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Tim Vanderhoek
- Re: OpenBSD's strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) Warner Losh