On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:08:44 +0000 Dave wrote: DS> > How about "acceptUnauthorizedNotifications" or something a DS> > bit more blatant that what they're doing may allow their machine DS> > to be taken over if they're also using traphandle scripts. DS> DS> Ummm... DS> DS> If I'm going to be writing this documentation, maybe it would DS> be helpful if *I* were a little clearer about the dangers. DS> Perhaps you could say something more about how a machine could DS> be "taken over" from running a traphandle script with an unknown DS> community string or user name? Because I just don't see it, ATM. DS> [..] DS> Talking about a system being "taken over" feels suspiciously DS> like scare tactics to me.
Indeed. If that were the case, then it would warrant an immediate backport to all branches, and the release of 5.0.10.3, 5.1.3.1 and 5.2.2.1. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
