excellent.
Bernard Johnson wrote:
> Paul J Stevens wrote:
>> The *only* reason for inclusion of "modules/.libs" is facilitating
>> developement. It could easily be (de)activated with an #ifdef.
>
> I understood that - I was just pointing out that it was not disabled in
> the distribution tarball
Paul J Stevens wrote:
> The *only* reason for inclusion of "modules/.libs" is facilitating
> developement. It could easily be (de)activated with an #ifdef.
I understood that - I was just pointing out that it was not disabled in
the distribution tarball by default, which could lead to some ill effe
Aaron Stone wrote:
> None of the binaries are setuid/setgid, so there's no risk of running code
> at a privilege level different than any other code that the logged-in user
> is allowed to run.
>
> You do make a good point that a sysadmin should be aware of -- a user
> could install a "trojan modu
