Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> what issues might arise if the output is redirected to a legal tmp file?
>>
>
> Well, (1) finding a place to put the temp file, ie a writable directory;
> (2) ensuring the file is removed afterwards; (3) not exposing the user
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> what issues might arise if the output is redirected to a legal tmp file?
Well, (1) finding a place to put the temp file, ie a writable directory;
(2) ensuring the file is removed afterwards; (3) not exposing the user
to security hazards due to unsafe use
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andreas Pflug wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
> security risk ... what are they thinking??
>
> >>> Frank
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
security risk ... what are they thinking??
>>> Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
> >> security risk ... what are they thinking??
> >>
> >
> > Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid
"dror" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Andrew, Regarding to your comments: > 1. a patch is generated by the pro=
> gram "diff"I will do it ,if needed> 2. before we do anything, as Tom Lane s=
> ays, we need verification of the > problem, preferably in writing from Micr=
> osoft.I do understand tha
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
>> security risk ... what are they thinking??
>>
>
> Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid.
> And I can't find any suggestion t
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
> security risk ... what are they thinking??
Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid.
And I can't find any suggestion that they've done this in a google
sear
