|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()?
Mark E. Mallett (mem
MV.MV.COM)Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:09:34 -0400
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich: "Re: SECURITY: groff, rhs-printfilters, tetex, metamail fixes"
- Previous message: Charles M. Hannum: "More info on SPARC CPU bug"
- In reply to: Aleph One: "Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()?"
- Next in thread: Tim Newsham: "Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()?"
>
> In muc.lists.freebsd.security, you wrote:
> > fd = open("/dev/rsd0a", -1, 0);
In fact it looks like any mode value with the bottom 2 bits on will
work. e.g. -1, 3, 7, etc.
> + if(!flags)
> + flags++;
> +
This will only cover the -1 case. Perhaps also changing:
> flags = FFLAGS(uap->flags);
to
> flags = FFLAGS(uap->flags) & 3;
and then the zero test as above?
-mm-
- Next message: Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich: "Re: SECURITY: groff, rhs-printfilters, tetex, metamail fixes"
- Previous message: Charles M. Hannum: "More info on SPARC CPU bug"
- In reply to: Aleph One: "Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()?"
- Next in thread: Tim Newsham: "Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()?"