Chris Turner wrote:
> On 11/12/15 14:10, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Chris Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The attached patch calls fsync(2) on related FD's in the login(3)
> >>> routines, which corrected the problem on my test machine,
> >>> and imho might be a good idea in general.
> >
> > AFAIK it should
On 11/12/15 14:10, Ted Unangst wrote:
Chris Turner wrote:
>>>
The attached patch calls fsync(2) on related FD's in the login(3)
routines, which corrected the problem on my test machine,
and imho might be a good idea in general.
AFAIK it should not be necessary to call fsync() before close().
Chris Turner wrote:
>
> Wondering if anyone had a chance to take a look at these -
> Subject line tagged accordingly :D
> > I could see in some scenarios, aside from generating incorrect
> > data, this incorrect record could be used to facillitate hiding
> > presence of a successful compromise.
Wondering if anyone had a chance to take a look at these -
Subject line tagged accordingly :D
Cheers,
- Chris
On 10/30/15 11:44, Chris Turner wrote:
Hello -
I was testing some login data collection scripts (on a VM)
and discovered that in certain cases, it was possible for a
login record
