Subject: Re: buffer overflows in libsa
To: Roland Illig <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 08/23/2005 19:00:30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:47:22AM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
> matthew green wrote:
> >one thing to be wary of is bloating the bootblocks.  all the
> >proposed changes increase the size of text...
> As soon as no-one needs it, the gets(3) function will be removed from=20
> libsa. This will reduce the test size again. I think the effective=20
> increase will be around less than 20 machine instructions. But that's=20
> the price for not having buffer overflows. ;)

I didn't ask this before, but what threat scenarios do we have in mind=20
here? As David notes, such a buffer overflow would have to be something=20
that someone at a keyboard can type into the system. And if someone can=20
type arbitrary text at the keyboard, we have other issues.

What threats do we have in mind? Or do we have a desire for a check-box=20
validation (which can be important, I admit)?

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)