# HG changeset patch
# User Christian Urban <christian dot urban at kcl dot ac dot uk>
# Date 1475618164 -3600
# Node ID e4a2807ac7f2ebe9400c31dd46efee57976a5bc7
# Parent  da4896f201b56897301d1d640e87a9a319a619a3
updated

diff -r da4896f201b5 -r e4a2807ac7f2 handouts/ho03.pdf
Binary file handouts/ho03.pdf has changed
diff -r da4896f201b5 -r e4a2807ac7f2 handouts/ho03.tex
--- a/handouts/ho03.tex	Tue Oct 04 22:43:00 2016 +0100
+++ b/handouts/ho03.tex	Tue Oct 04 22:56:04 2016 +0100
@@ -39,9 +39,9 @@
     ylabel={\% of total attacks},
     ylabel style={yshift=-1em},
     enlargelimits=false,
-    xtick={1997,1999,2001,...,2015},
+    xtick={1997,2000,2002,...,2016},
     xmin=1996.5,
-    xmax=2016,
+    xmax=2017,
     ymax=21,
     ytick={0,5,...,20},
     scaled ticks=false,
@@ -404,10 +404,10 @@
 
 \begin{figure}[p]
 \lstinputlisting[language=C]{../progs/C2.c}
-\caption{A vulnerable login implementation. The use of the
-`own' \pcode{get\_line} function makes this program
-vulnerable. The developer should have used \emph{safe}
-library functions instead.\label{C2}}
+\caption{A vulnerable login implementation. The use of the `own'
+  \code{get\_line} function makes this program vulnerable. The
+  developer should have used \emph{safe} library functions
+  instead.\label{C2}}
 \end{figure}
 
 This kind of attack was very popular with commercial programs
@@ -566,10 +566,9 @@
 \begin{figure}[p]
 \lstinputlisting[language=C]{../progs/C3.c}
 \caption{Overwriting a buffer with a string containing a
-payload. Lines 14 and 15 write the address of the buffer
-into \pcode{large\_string}. The payload is copied in 
-Lines 17 and 18. Line 20 copies the (too large) string
-into the buffer.\label{C3}}
+  payload. Lines 14 and 15 write the address of the buffer into
+  \code{large\_string}. The payload is copied in Lines 17 and 18. Line
+  20 copies the (too large) string into the buffer.\label{C3}}
 \end{figure}
 
 By the way you might naw have the question how do attackers