Re: [Unbound-core] unbound dig

[Juli M. <jma...@Fr...>]

* 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.