>The "brokenness" is that OpenBSD simply doesn't implement utmpx, because >it's seen as an unsafe and insecure interface. OpenBSD aren't the only ones >who feel this way (the musl C library also doesn't support utmpx, for the >same reasons: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/03/04/4).
I'd find the "security" arguments more compelling if OpenBSD didn't implement utmp, which has (as far I can tell) the same security issues. And the security issues aren't inherent in the API, you could implement it another way (see utmpd on Solaris). >As far as I know the behavior of the utmpx functions are not defined by >POSIX either. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696899/functions/endutxent.html Obviously some stuff is unspecified, like what you mean by the "user accounting database". --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
