On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:35:37PM -0400, Bill Squier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:34:52AM +0000, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > > Log Message: > > sprintf -> snprintf > > > > > I have decided to further secure NetBSD by changing all the instances of > the word 'sprintf' in your log messages to 'snprintf'. > > All kidding aside, don't you feel that some of these changes are a waste of > your valuable time? Many of these changes are in device drivers where the > lengths of these items are fixed. If I understand some of Itojun's past comments, I think the idea is not that the code is vulnerable, but the idea to have all examples be safe ones. So that when future programmers copy code, they always see safe examples. However I wonder if we really should do this. If the only reason code is safe is that the programmer only had "safe" examples, then we don't have true understanding, we have security through luck. Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpMQ9gONqsZE.pgp
Description: PGP signature