Re: [Ganglia-developers] patches for: [Sec] Gmetadserver BoFandnetwork overload + [Feature] multiple requestsper connoninteractive port

2009-01-18 Thread Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:22:27AM +0800, Spike Spiegel wrote: the comment should be removed since the +1 is there: + /* +1 not needed as q-p is already accounting for that */ + element = malloc(len + 1); Committed revision 1950 other than that looks good to me. could you

Re: [Ganglia-developers] patches for: [Sec] Gmetad server BoF and network overload + [Feature] multiple requests per conn on interactive port

2009-01-18 Thread Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:41:19PM +0800, Spike Spiegel wrote: === DoS attacks 1) Given REQUESTLEN=2048, and 3 characters to be the minimum to craft a valid and nonexistent path /x, with the above feature implemented it would be possible to trigger 2048/3 calls to process_path which would

Re: [Ganglia-developers] patches for: [Sec] Gmetadserver BoFandnetwork overload + [Feature] multiple requestsper connoninteractive port

2009-01-18 Thread Spike Spiegel
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon care...@sajinet.com.pe wrote: other than that looks good to me. could you check the simplified one?, this problem was introduced in 2003 and therefore affects all versions of ganglia since then (including 2.5.7 which is not supported

Re: [Ganglia-developers] patches for: [Sec] Gmetadserver BoFandnetwork overload + [Feature] multiple requestsper connoninteractive port

2009-01-18 Thread Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 09:53:32PM +0800, Spike Spiegel wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon care...@sajinet.com.pe wrote: other than that looks good to me. could you check the simplified one?, this problem was introduced in 2003 and therefore affects all

Re: [Ganglia-developers] patches for: [Sec] Gmetadserver BoFandnetwork overload + [Feature] multiple requestsper connoninteractive port

2009-01-18 Thread Spike Spiegel
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon care...@sajinet.com.pe wrote: agree, but that is to be done in the context of getting multi-patch committed and backported, but not in fixing this buffer overflow in the interactive port, which is what BUG223 is about. ok, guess I'll