search for: wrerrno

...void) response(); + if (response() == 0 && eraseflag && !haderr) { + if (unlink(name) < 0) + run_err("%s: %s", name, strerror(errno)); + } } } @@ -656,7 +679,7 @@ int amt, count, exists, first, mask, mode, ofd, omode; off_t size; int setimes, targisdir, wrerrno = 0; - char ch, *cp, *np, *targ, *why, *vect[1], buf[2048]; + char ch, *cp, *np, *targ, *dest, *why, *vect[1], buf[2048]; struct timeval tv[2]; #define atime tv[0] @@ -770,6 +793,7 @@ np = namebuf; } else np = targ; + dest = *tmpfn? tmpfn : np; curfile = cp; exists = stat(np,...

...,12 @@ bad: run_err("%s: %s", np, strerror(er if (showprogress) progressmeter(1); + if (buf[0] == 'L') { + if (size >= PIPE_BUF) + SCREWUP("symlink bigger than PIPE_BUF"); + bp[size] = '\0'; + wrerr = (symlink(bp, np) < 0) ? YES : NO; + wrerrno = errno; + goto done; + } if (count != 0 && wrerr == NO && (j = atomicio(write, ofd, bp, count)) != count) { @@ -917,5 +954,4 @@ bad: run_err("%s: %s", np, strerror(er wrerrno = errno; } - (void) response(); if (setimes && wrerr == NO) {...

...think they monitor this list so I'll let them speak up if they choose to. >--- rcp.c~ Sun Feb 16 05:11:07 2003 >+++ rcp.c Sun Feb 16 05:13:52 2003 >@@ -589,7 +591,7 @@ > off_t i, j, size; > int amt, count, exists, first, mask, mode, ofd, omode; > int setimes, targisdir, wrerrno = 0; >- char ch, *cp, *np, *targ, *why, *vect[1], buf[BUFSIZ]; >+ char ch, *cp, *np, *targ, *why, *vect[1], buf[BUFSIZ], path[PATH_MAX]; > > #define atime tv[0] > #define mtime tv[1] >@@ -686,21 +688,15 @@ > if (*cp++ != ' ') > SCREWUP("size not delimit...

If the source and destination file are identical, the receiving scp truncates the file. On the sending end, read() returns 0, and garbage is sent instead of actual data, and the receiving end puts it into the file, which at least confuses the users. -- Florian Weimer Florian.Weimer at RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE University of Stuttgart http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/

Hello, I would like to request an update of the progress regarding fixes for the recently disclosed SCP vulnerability (CVE-2018-20685, CVE-2019-6111, CVE-2019-6109, CVE-2019-6110) It has been stated that CVE-2018-20685 has been patched in november but there are currently no information available on the progress of patches regarding the other CVEs. Will there be a patched release any time soon?

...icio(write, remout, bp->buf, amt); else { @@ -579,8 +679,10 @@ if (result != amt) haderr = result >= 0 ? EIO : errno; statbytes += result; + bcounter += result; } } + if (showprogress) progressmeter(1); @@ -666,7 +768,8 @@ int setimes, targisdir, wrerrno = 0; char ch, *cp, *np, *targ, *why, *vect[1], buf[2048]; struct timeval tv[2]; - + int resume = 0; + #define atime tv[0] #define mtime tv[1] #define SCREWUP(str) do { why = str; goto screwup; } while (0) @@ -734,7 +837,7 @@ (void) atomicio(write, remout, "", 1); con...