<HEAD><TITLE>discuss@charon: [968] in "Coldmud discussion meeting"</TITLE>
<H1>[968] in Coldmud discussion meeting</H1></HEAD>
<A HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i-d.gif" ALT="root"></A>
<A HREF="?968"><IMG SRC="/i-back.gif" ALT="meeting"></A>
<A HREF="/help.html"><IMG SRC="/i-help.gif" ALT="help"></A>
<A HREF="1"><IMG SRC="/i-first.gif" ALT="first"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-fref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-pref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="967"><IMG SRC="/i-prev.gif" ALT="previous"></A>
<A HREF="969"><IMG SRC="/i-next.gif" ALT="next"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-nref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-lref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="1641"><IMG SRC="/i-last.gif" ALT="last"></A>
<HR><H2>[COLD] backdoor in a database</H2>
<H3>daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri Apr 19 01:36:25 1996
)</H3>
<PRE>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:16:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: Brandon Gillespie &lt;brandon@tombstone.sunrem.com&gt;
To: coldstuff@cold.org

Should this stay around?  With coldcc -tstdin -p you get the ability to 
directly diddle with a database, without having to worry about 
interfacing it through the regular channels.  The problem with it is the 
database has to be shutdown.  You also dont have the added advantage of 
allowing network logins from other admins.  However, the backdoor itself 
can get broke when you seriously foob something, causing you to drop back 
to coldcc -tstdin -p anyway.  I'm debating removing the backdoor from the 
coldcore, as it's usefulness has been overgrown by features in coldcc.  
Does anybody have objections to this?

-Brandon Gilespie-

(BTW, Genesis 1.0 is out; I'm holding off on a major announcement while I 
get simple bug fixes in, but its available at ftp.cold.org for 
adventurous souls).
</PRE>
