"Secure coding" audit checkers and Kerberos

[Tom Yu]

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 04:05:10PM -0500, John Hascall wrote:
>>   1) snprintf is also non-standard
>>   2) there are some horrible snprintf's out there,
>>      including ones which do little more than call sprintf!
>
> The MIT-krb5-uses-snprintf() train departed long ago.
>
> The Consortium might well decide to [continue to] provide portable
> versions of these, or that MIT krb5 will not support platforms which do
> not provide at least working snprintf().  I would support either
> position.
>
> I do object to avoiding *s*printf().  If ultimately that means that MIT

Do you mean to say that you object to *not* avoiding sprintf, i.e.,
that you object to retaining any uses of sprintf?