Skip to content

Conversation

@bagder
Copy link
Member

@bagder bagder commented Sep 25, 2025

A probably unnecessary precaution but since the field sizes are 16 bit in the protocol this makes sure to fail if they would ever be larger as that would go wrong.

Reported in Joshua's sarif data

A probably unnecessary precaution but since the field sizes are 16 bit in the
protocol this makes sure to fail if they would ever be larger as that would go
wrong.

Reported in Joshua's sarif data
@bagder bagder marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2025 09:31
@bagder bagder closed this in 943166f Sep 25, 2025
@bagder bagder deleted the bagder/socks-sspi-fieldsize branch September 25, 2025 11:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant