|
From: Juli M. <jma...@Fr...> - 2002-11-15 07:13:41
|
* De: Lurene Angela Grenier <lu...@da...> [ Data: 2002-11-14 ] [ Subjecte: [Unbound-core] unbound dig ] > Since we want to make a drop in replacement for bind, do we need to > have all command line arguments to bind dig be the same? I wouldn't mind > except that this is not posix, and consequently not supported by getopt(). > > Is it more important to be the same as bind9, or posix compliant? > (using getopt() significantly lowers thre chances of a bad parser having a hole) Parsing command line arguments is significantly more trivial than the average things which would lead to a "hole" in a parser. If the command is called "dig" it should do its best to act like dig, IMO. Even if it's passed to an unbound client program which has getopt(3) style arguments, and just parsed for the dig style first. I'm a bit unclear about what sorts of holes you're even alluding to, anyway, because of the nature of user-driven programs which are not setuid/setgid/... Even if dig were setuid/setgid, it would be possible to do the parsing in an unprivleged manner, if it were so poorly programmed as to require such an environment, and such that it could not simply be made to parse properly. juli. -- Juli Mallett <jma...@Fr...> OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer. ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict. FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD. |