Joey Hess wrote:
> No, tmpnam generates a name for a file that did not exist at some point
> in time, but that *will* exist in the worst possible state (eg, a
> symlink to something important) when an attacker is targeting your program.
Which is why I'm trying to find a way to get rid of the call
Colin Tuckley wrote:
> tmpnam generates a name for a file which is guaranteed *not* to exist
No, tmpnam generates a name for a file that did not exist at some point
in time, but that *will* exist in the worst possible state (eg, a
symlink to something important) when an attacker is targeting your
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Why can't you just set up a pipe, fork, connect stdout of the child to one
> end of the pipe, and exec the program?
Thanks, reading about 'pipe' led me to 'popen' which pretty much
automatically does what you suggest.
regards,
Colin
--
Colin Tuckley | [EMAI
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:17:55AM +, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> The interpreter allows the user to execute shell commands, this is
> implemented using the "system" call.
>
> [...]
>
> What is the best solution to this problem?
Why can't you just set up a pipe, fork, connect stdout of the child to
4 matches
Mail list logo
