<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/html" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><channel><title>Ross Burton</title><link>http://www.burtonini.com/blog</link><description>A potted account of Ross' life</description><language>en</language><ttl>60</ttl><dc:creator>Ross Burton</dc:creator><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/"/><admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:ross@burtonini.com"/><item><title>qmail Author Considered Dangerous</title><guid isPermaLink="false">computers/qmail-crack-2006-08-31-09-55</guid><link>http://www.burtonini.com/blog/computers/qmail-crack-2006-08-31-09-55</link><description>Thanks to LWN I was reminded of the, erm, interesting license and security guarantee of qmail. Specifically: In March 1997, ...</description><content:encoded><![CDATA[    <p>
      Thanks to LWN I was reminded of the, erm, <em>interesting</em> license and
      <a href="http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html">security guarantee</a> of
      qmail.  Specifically:
    </p>
    <blockquote>
      <p>
        In March 1997, I offered $500 to the first person to publish a
        verifiable security hole in the latest version of qmail: for example, a
        way for a user to exploit qmail to take over another account. My offer
        still stands. Nobody has found any security holes in qmail. [...] In May
        2005, Georgi Guninski claimed that some potential 64-bit portability
        problems allowed a ``remote exploit in qmail-smtpd.'' This claim is
        denied. Nobody gives gigabytes of memory to each qmail-smtpd process, so
        there is no problem with qmail's assumption that allocated array lengths
        fit comfortably into 32 bits.
      </p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>
      Erm. Well.  I'm not sure what to say.  Assuming that array lengths
      (<tt>size_t</tt>, IIRC) is a 32-bit type even on 64-bit architectures is
      wrong.  Defending it is insanity.
    </p>
    <p>
      <small>NP: <cite>Layered</cite>, Antibreak</small>
    </p>
]]></content:encoded><category domain="http://www.burtonini.com">/computers</category><dc:date>2006-08-31T08:55:00Z</dc:date></item></channel></rss>