Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!maart
From: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re^2: ulimit
Message-ID: <2375@solo11.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 25 Apr 89 01:30:32 GMT
References: <19516@genrad.UUCP> <1319@nusdhub.UUCP> <10075@smoke.BRL.MIL> <881@cetia4.UUCP> <100455@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <16042@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lines: 21

jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes:
\>	% ls -l /etc/passwd*
\>	-rw-r--r--  1 root            0 Apr  3 10:44 /etc/passwd
\>	-rw-r--r--  1 root          439 Apr  3 10:40 /etc/passwd.old
\>	% su
\>	password: xxxxxxx

\How'd you do that?  In the absence of a password file entry for root
\will su _really_ let you in?  [ The answer in SVr[12?] is NO ]

Think 1 step further:

	% ls -l /etc/passwd
	-rw-r--r--  1 root           97 Apr  3 23:59 /etc/passwd

This passwd file probably contains an incomplete line, and we all know how
getpwnam() and friends (used to) treat such lines, don't we?
Remember the "Comments in /etc/passwd" discussion?
-- 
 "If it isn't aesthetically pleasing, |Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
  it's probably wrong." (jim@bilpin). |maart@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart