Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!svin02!wsinfo11!debra
From: debra@wsinfo11.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SECURITY BUG IN INTERACTIVE UNIX SYSV386
Keywords: BAD BUG
Message-ID: <1739@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>
Date: 13 Feb 91 13:22:43 GMT
References: <KR3NBQQ@dobag.in-berlin.de> <1991Feb11.184130.11321@jwt.UUCP>
Sender: news@svin02.info.win.tue.nl
Reply-To: debra@info.win.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 16

In article <1991Feb11.184130.11321@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes:
>In article <KR3NBQQ@dobag.in-berlin.de> lumpi@dobag.in-berlin.de (Joern Lubkoll) writes:
>>it seems that your very cute interactive unix System has a nice bug !
>Yikes.  This also works on ESIX-D without a coprocessor, and on ISC 2.0.2
>*with* a coprocessor.  It failed on Microport 2.2 with a coprocessor.
>...

This (and other postings) suggests that the problem would be found
in the more generic sVr3.2 from AT&T.
However, I tried AT&T sVr3.2 (version 2.1) on a machine (with coprocessor)
and got a memory fault.
So it looks like somehow the same bug ended up in ESIX and ISC
(and AT&T sVr3.1?) but not in AT&T sVr3.2.1 or SCO.

Paul.
(debra@research.att.com, debra@win.tue.nl)