I take it that "server" in this context includes the remote party in a "serverless" transfer. I mean, I take it this isn't particular to the rsync daemon. It s

I take it that "server" in this context includes the remote party in a "serverless" transfer. I mean, I take it this isn't particular to the rsync daemon. It sounds like a very serious defect, very easy to exploit. It needed to be addressed quickly. I'm not surprised they skipped the code review.