|
Message-ID: <b65e849b7e7e8a53a9404287ac176802@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:39:38 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: fixing the valid() methods On 10 Dec, 2012, at 4:13 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2012 08:39 AM, magnum wrote: >> On 10 Dec, 2012, at 4:06 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10 Dec, 2012, at 3:52 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote: >>>> On Monday 10 December 2012 08:11 AM, magnum wrote: >>>>> On 10 Dec, 2012, at 3:11 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> After fixing KRB4, DMG segfaults. This is one of the formats that got a "more robust valid()" days ago. Unfortunately it is still not robust. Note btw that my "valid() killer" does not trigger all kinds of problems, basically just one. magnum >>>> LOL. My patches to valid were not very good but they are getting better. >>>> >>>> Can you try crashing RACF format? I am (slightly) more confident about it. >>> I think it will survive most anything, but you reject on tag mismatch before doing the strdup(). >> That should have read "you *should* reject on tag mismatch"... >> > + if (strncmp(ciphertext, "$racf$*", 7)) > + goto err; > > I do that already. Is the code above good enough? To be picky you could return 0 instead of goto err - there's nothing to free. magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.