[3142] in Kerberos-V5-bugs
krb5-kdc/779: More on multiple interface address issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ahp@hilander.com)
Tue Oct 26 21:48:14 1999
Resent-From: gnats@rt-11.MIT.EDU (GNATS Management)
Resent-To: krb5-unassigned@RT-11.MIT.EDU
Resent-Reply-To: krb5-bugs@MIT.EDU, ahp@hilander.com
Message-Id: <E11gIBF-0000V9-00@ramirez.hilander.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:47:13 +0000
From: ahp@hilander.com
Reply-To: ahp@hilander.com
To: krb5-bugs@MIT.EDU
>Number: 779
>Category: krb5-kdc
>Synopsis: Fix for krb5-kdc/778
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: high
>Responsible: krb5-unassigned
>State: open
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: unknown
>Arrival-Date: Tue Oct 26 21:48:00 EDT 1999
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Alec H. Peterson
>Organization:
Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com
Staff Scientist
Centergate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it."
>Release: krb5-1.0.6
>Environment:
System: Linux ramirez.hilander.com 2.2.12-20 #1 Mon Sep 27 10:25:54 EDT 1999 i586 unknown
Architecture: i586
>Description:
As stated in krb5-kdc/778
>How-To-Repeat:
As stated in krb5-kdc/778
>Fix:
Obviously my suggestion of using listen/accept won't work (wasn't thinking
in a UDP world). However, if you get the individual interface addresses
and create a separate socket for each one it works just as well. I've
written code to do this, but it's pretty ugly. Let me know if you'd like
it.
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
