reopen 505071 thanks Hello,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 07:55:23AM +1000, p...@maths.usyd.edu.au wrote: > > Please see below. The patch of src/login.c is essential for security; > I would prefer to use the libmisc/utmp.c patch also. I changed src/login.c in libmisc/utmp.c, I only sanitized ut_line. Is it necessary to reset ut_id? There isn't a single/standard way to define ut_id. If the caller of login did not use the same algorithm (ut_line+3), then a new entry will be added in utmp. What would be the consequences of a wrong/forged ut_id? If all fields are reset, then, yes we could remove the getutent() loop. > Hmm... am now thinking that hostname (PAM_RHOST) may also be dodgy. utent.ut_host is only used to set: * fromhost (only used for SYSLOG) * failent A forged ut_host does not seems critical. > I do not think I can re-open (would not know how, and I think am banned > from doing control things since the kerfuffle in #299007). I would be really surprised that you would be banned from the BTS (I only heard about one case in the past). Instructions are there: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control Best Regards, -- Nekral -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
