Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:48:01 +0000 From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw table add problem Message-ID: <20131126124757.GA9974@anubis.morrow.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <5293EBD6.8010009@protected-networks.net> References: <CAAcX-AGDZbFn5RmhLBBn2PPWRPcsFUnea5MgTc7nuXGD8Ge53A@mail.gmail.com> <52911993.8010108@ipfw.ru> <CAAcX-AEt_i8RUfmMy6WLnER0X=uLk5A1=oj911k-nyMJEghRLw@mail.gmail.com> <529259DE.2040701@FreeBSD.org> <20131125152238.S78756@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <1385391778.1220.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <20131126001806.27951AD3DBF@rock.dv.isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoth Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>: > > Misinterpreting "10.2.3.01" as "0.0.0.10/32" without so much as a > warning from either inet_pton() or ipfw is an egregious breach of POLA, That's not a bug in inet_pton, though, that's a bug in ipfw. It's blindly passing the string to atoi or some such when inet_pton fails, and ignoring the fact it doesn't consume the whole string. Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131126124757.GA9974>