Eric, the thing is, buffer overflows don't just crash the program unless
you have some really nifty guard pages, but overwrite other things in
memory. This means an attacker can, in certain situations, use it to create
something that not just crashes, but with a nifty input create an exploit.
Having a 'Oh it will just crash' attitude is 'not the best'.
2018-04-02 19:41 GMT+02:00 Eric Kohl <eric.kohl(a)t-online.de>de>:
Hello Thomas,
you're right, using the run-time size checks are a good way to keep
application from crashing because of buffer overflows. They'll just keep
on using corrupt data instead! If you want to fix this problem: Don't
use C! Use C++, C#, Java etc. instead!
I prefer to see an application crash because of a buffer overflow rather
than seeing it store truncated phone numbers in a database.
PS: If the timeout is longer than a day, winlogon uses the "%d days"
format. In the end, a buffer of 10 characters is still large enough.
PPS: I'll keep using the old functions until you remove them from the
runtime code.
Regards
Eric
Am 02.04.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Thomas Faber:
Hey Eric,
On 2018-04-02 12:58, Eric Kohl wrote:
- RtlStringCbPrintfW(strbuf, sizeof(strbuf),
L"%d:%d:%d", hours,
minutes, seconds);
+ swprintf(szBuffer, L"%02d:%02d:%02d", iHours, iMinutes, iSeconds);
Unfortunately I must disagree with this change.
Buffer overflows are a big enough threat that code review and
static analysis are not generally considered sufficient to protect
against them.
So it's best practice for new code to always verify sizes at run-time,
and never to use s(w)print.
Best regards,
Thomas
PS: from what I see, iHours can be as large as 1193046, which won't
fit in 2 digits
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev