Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v05i053: A "safe" replacement for gets()
Message-ID: <718@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 88 00:59:32 GMT
References: <674@quintus.UUCP> <8709@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 9

In article <8709@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <674@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP writes:
>>[Aaaaagh.  I always suspected gets() was a potential bomb.  How about
>>#define gets(s) fgets(s, sizeof s, stdin)
>>as a quick fix?  ++bsa]

Just in case anyone was confused (I would have been), the quoted material
is from ++bsa, _not_ from ok@quintus.  It turns out that my improved
getsafe() was still subject to attack:  I'll post the revised version soon.