Tom Lane wrote:
> In this case what particularly scares me is the idea that 'samenet'
> might be interpreted to let in a larger subnet than the user expected,
> eg 10/8 instead of 10.0.0/24. You'd likely not notice the problem until
> after you'd been broken into ...
>
>
I haven't looked at this "feature" at all, but I'd be inclined, on the
grounds you quite reasonably cite, to require a netmask with "samenet",
rather than just ask the interface for its netmask.
cheers
andrew
