Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:14:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:      hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
To:        paradox@pegasus.rutgers.edu
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ["Ian Kallen" <ian@gamespot.com>: Re: Install Q& A]
Message-ID:  <199607241614.MAA02438@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In Email, Red Barchetta <paradox@pegasus.rutgers.edu> wrote:

> >Is . in your path?  A lot of folks consider it bad sysadmin practive 
> >to have it so and to precede all commands outside their path with full 
> >paths or relative paths (i.e. from /stand run it as ./sysinstall).
>
> Why is this considered bad practice?

I'm sure someone else will mention the security problems involved, but...

You'll find, if you're new to UNIX, that it's just not like DOS in that
99% of the time when you are running a command it is not in the current
directory.  In DOS, one might do something like

cd \spread\lotus
lotus

But in UNIX the executable programs are typically all kept in 
their own directory with nothing but executables (ex. /bin, /usr/bin,
/sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin -- the bin in each of these
probably stands for "binaries").  If lotus were a UNIX program, you
would probably find lotus.exe in /usr/local/bin and the rest of the
files used by lotus elsewhere.  It's just not necessary to have
`.' in your path most of the time.  

To prove that this can be a security concern, let me relate something
that happened to someone using DOS.  They were given a zip file and
asked to have a look at it (for a good and sensable reason).  They 
moved the zip into a directory and pkunzipped it.  Inside of the 
zip were more zip files.  The person then unzipped these files.
Suddenly he was infected with a virus.  What happened is that inside
the first zipfile was a false copy of pkunzip which deactivated all
the virus checkers, then called the real pkunzip, and then ran a 
virus that was contained inside one of the secondary zips.  Had
DOS not run the pkunzip that was in the current directory, the 
real pkunzip would have been run, the virus checkers not disabled,
and the virus caught.  As it was, he lost several months of work
due to the virusses.  (which brings us to rule #2: backup, but that's
another story :).



-- 
--
tIM...HOEk
Outnumbered?  Maybe.  Outspoken?  NEVER!



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607241614.MAA02438>