On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:21:41 +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
> I don't usually use telnet, but seemed simple to fix the hand rolled
> parser to use strtonum
>
> OKs/opinions on the verbiage?
Looks good. OK millert@
- todd
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 01:21:41PM +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
> On 2024/08/25 20:55:09 -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> > "Theo de Raadt" writes:
> >
> > > Noone uses telnet, we (mostly) killed it!
> > >
> > > https://www.openbsd.org/images/tshirt-9b.jpg
> > >
> > > There is no way in heck this code is
On 2024/08/25 20:55:09 -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> "Theo de Raadt" writes:
>
> > Noone uses telnet, we (mostly) killed it!
> >
> > https://www.openbsd.org/images/tshirt-9b.jpg
> >
> > There is no way in heck this code is going to be converted in OpenBSD
> > to use strtol(), which is even more wi
"Theo de Raadt" writes:
> Noone uses telnet, we (mostly) killed it!
>
> https://www.openbsd.org/images/tshirt-9b.jpg
>
> There is no way in heck this code is going to be converted in OpenBSD
> to use strtol(), which is even more willing to eat junk.
I don't disagree. Especially on the strtol par
Noone uses telnet, we (mostly) killed it!
https://www.openbsd.org/images/tshirt-9b.jpg
There is no way in heck this code is going to be converted in OpenBSD
to use strtol(), which is even more willing to eat junk.
In our world, someone should adapt this to strtonum(), which is
a cynical string t
Hi,
Earlier this week I committed this change in GNU Inetutils [1]. When
sending the 'send dont ' telnet command, the value is not checked
for overflow. Likewise for 'do', 'will', 'wont'.
Another GNU Inetutils developer segfaults doing 'send dont 2147483648'
and 'send dont 9223372034707292160' bu
