Re: PUzzling sshd behaviour

2003-09-06 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:54:35PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Bruce M Simpson wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:46:46AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>The fact that sshd requires reverse IP resolution is well-known > >>behaviour. It's probably the most common FAQ about sshd ("Why is my >

Re: PUzzling sshd behaviour

2003-09-06 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Bruce M Simpson wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:46:46AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Anyone else see this type of thing before? I did some research on the lists but all I ever saw was a problem with reading resolv.conf. That's not the case here, because it's definitely picking up the nameserver

Re: PUzzling sshd behaviour

2003-09-06 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:46:46AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Anyone else see this type of thing before? I did some research on the > > lists but all I ever saw was a problem with reading resolv.conf. That's > > not the case here, because it's definitely picking up the nameserver > > from t

Possible memory overrun and/or MALLOC api violation in getsockaddr()

2003-09-06 Thread Matthew Dillon
From what I can tell getsockaddr() (kern/uipc_syscalls.c) is called with a user-supplied length as its argument. It checks for len > SOCK_MAXADDRLEN, but it does not check to see if the length is too small and it may MALLOC() a structure, 'sa', which is too small for the assig