At Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:05:25 +0100, Arne Schwabe <arne_at_rfc2549.org> wrote: > > Kimura Fuyuki <fuyuki_at_nigredo.org> writes: > > > OK, I more clearly point out the problem; run the following test and > > think that behavior is secure/modular/comfortable or not. > > > > BEGIN--cut here--cut here > > #!/bin/sh > > > > cat <<'[EOF]' >crypt.c > > /* Define this function since I want to do so! */ > > char *crypt_md5(const char *pw, const char *salt) > > { > > return "imbogus"; > > } > > [EOF] > > > > cat <<'[EOF]' >dltest.c > > #include <stdio.h> > > #include <dlfcn.h> > > > > int main(void) > > { > > void *h; > > char *(*crypt)(const char *, const char *); > > > > h = dlopen("/lib/libcrypt.so", 0); > > At least on my system /lib/libcrypt.so does not even exist, if I > change it to /lib/libcrypt.so.2 it works. Ouch. I've pointed at the stale link. But what I wanted to say is "why does crypt() call crypt_md5 in crypt.so rather than libcrypt.so.2 ?". Is the current behavior normal? -- fuyukiReceived on Fri Feb 13 2004 - 20:09:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:43 UTC