On 2013-03-16 23:06, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Chris Down wrote:
> > On 2013-03-16 12:13, Chet Ramey wrote:
> >> > If it cannot be removed, then some people are using it with the false
> >> > expectation that it provides some increased security. Better to get
> >> >
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Chris Down wrote:
> On 2013-03-16 12:13, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> > If it cannot be removed, then some people are using it with the false
>> > expectation that it provides some increased security. Better to get
>> > rid of that than have someone think it is worth the
On 2013-03-16 12:13, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > If it cannot be removed, then some people are using it with the false
> > expectation that it provides some increased security. Better to get
> > rid of that than have someone think it is worth the extra bytes it takes
> > to implement.
>
> Folks cling ti
On 3/15/13 4:01 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Perhaps it would be doing a favor to users and allow some minor code
> cleanup to simply get rid of the 'rbash'/restricted functionality.
It's already an optional feature. You can easily remove it by configuring
bash with `--disable-restricted'. That's n
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Honestly, a "restricted shell" is usually a pitiful thing that would be
> > a joke, except it's not even funny.
> Chet answered this in context:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
> > Posix has chosen not to standardize the restricted shell, either `rsh' or
>
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Honestly, a "restricted shell" is usually a pitiful thing that would be
> a joke, except it's not even funny.
>
> I have no idea what the POSIX standard has to do with your question,
> though.
-
Chet answered this in context:
Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/14/13 2:5
