Re: a point is being missed

[scott () Disclosure COM (Scott Barman)]

On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, *Hobbit* wrote:

> Why in all this telnetd flap has nobody mentioned that /bin/login should
> be relinked STATICALLY?  That at least defers the LD_* class of problem
> until after login has done the setuid and exec, but still leaves things
> like IFS passed to scripts.
>
> Still, my own rule of thumb is that any binary that talks to the net,
> handles inbound connections, handles authentication, etc ... should not be
> depending on shared libs.  It's well worth the miniscule disk space hit.
> Vendors, LISSEN UP.

I agree 100%.  However, have you ever tried to do that under Solaris 2.4?

I once convinced a client to build a firewall with SunOS 4.1.4 rather
than Solaris 2 because we couldn't statically link with many of the
libraries (e.g., there is no static -lresolv and in -lnsl one of the
gethost* or get-something functions is not compiled correctly in the
static version of the library).  I also haven't seen a patch from Sun
that would fix this, either.

With 2.5 a few days away, and since I am not a beta tester, I was
wondering if someone knew if this was fix?

TIA

scott barman
--
scott barman                  DISCLAIMER: I speak to anyone who will listen,
scott () disclosure com                      and I speak only for myself.
barman () ix netcom com
  "I don't know if security explains why the Win95 support Web servers run BSDI
   2.0--an Intel-based Unix--rather than Windows NT, which Microsoft insists is
   the ideal Web software solution.  Does Redmond know something we don't know?"
             -Robert X. Cringely, INFORWORLD, 9/11/95