Talk:Time-of-check to time-of-use
![]() | Computer security: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Computing: Software / Security Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this is most known as toctou not tocttou
compare with google
- http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/io/check.html mentions it as TOCTTOU --173.25.223.151 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
linux
someone should mention that you can prevent tocttou under linux via the following sysctl settings: fs.protected_hardlinks = 1 and fs.protected_symlinks = 1 79.230.118.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Other examples and solutions
File systems aren't the only place TOCTOU shows up. Here are some other familiar examples that might be worth working into the article.
- "Avoiding the lost update problem with optimistic locking" https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Conditional_requests#Use_cases
- "git push --force" vs. "git push --force-with-lease" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.188.74 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
TOCTOU vs. TOCTTOU
We list the TOCTTOU acronym first, and use it preferentially. I think that's backwards. I tried some searches:
Engine | TOCTOU | TOCTTOU |
---|---|---|
68,700 | 24,500 | |
Google Scholar | 719 | 603 |
Bing | 30,000 | 13,600 |
ACM Digital Library | 0 | 8 |
IEEE Explore Digital Library | 10 | 2 |
Github | 8 | 3 |
There's a clear preference for TOCTOU in actual usage in both the general purpose and technical corpora. I can only assume that the ACM outlier is due to a house style preference, which the IEEE doesn't share. Surprisingly, kernel.org's bugzilla comes up with "Zarro Boogs" for either term. Unclear what to make of that.
I think we should go with the most common usage.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Time of check to time of use. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130116041403/http://cdblp.cn/paper/UNIX%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%80%E4%B8%AA%E6%BC%8F%E6%B4%9E/94334.html to http://cdblp.cn/paper/UNIX%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%80%E4%B8%AA%E6%BC%8F%E6%B4%9E/94334.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170213004928/http://www.employees.org/~satch/ssh/faq/TheWholeSSHFAQ.html to http://www.employees.org/~satch/ssh/faq/TheWholeSSHFAQ.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Start-Class Computer security articles
- Low-importance Computer security articles
- Start-Class Computer security articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Computer security articles
- Start-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- Start-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles