Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:54:15 -0500 From: "Doug Poland" <dpoland@execpc.com> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Lynx forbidden Message-ID: <NDBBKMNOJKJGAEKJNLIAIEIPDDAA.dpoland@execpc.com> In-Reply-To: <20000402024251.A3917@kagan.quedawg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:38:44AM -0600, Alan Clegg wrote: > > Out of the ether, Benjamin Lutz spewed forth the following bitstream: > > > Well, I still have a question though: Why was Lynx marked "forbidden" > > > at all, leading to misunderstandings? Or the standard unix user > > > expected to be able to do this basic kind of "hacking"? > > > > The lynx port is marked forbidden due to security problems. > > > > There is no misunderstanding. > > > > If you want to open yourself (and your users) up to buffer overflows in > > the code, you are more than welcome. > > > > AlanC > > In light of that is there a recommended replacement for lynx until > the security holes are worked out. Unfortunately I need something > to view html marked up emails in mutt. I am replaced linux with > freebsd on my home machine and I would like that same functionality. > What other programs are out there like lynx that I could use in my > .mailcap file to view html marked emails in mutt? > > TIA > > -- > Brian K. Walters > bkwalters@lucent.com > > Please forgive the ignorance of these questions... How does a cracker exploit (or create?) buffer overflows that makes lynx vulnerable? If I have lynx on my system, when am I at risk? Doesn't sysinstall use lynx to read on-line documentation? If it's so risky, why would the installation program use it? -- Doug Poland To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NDBBKMNOJKJGAEKJNLIAIEIPDDAA.dpoland>