Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3C86961C.5040209@cportcorp.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:20:12 -0500 From: Peter Buckley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: login: no shell: /bin/bash: Permission denied References: <20020306101433 DOT P13590 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C866A0B DOT 6040500 AT DeFaria DOT com> <20020306213202 DOT C13590 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C869077 DOT 3090705 AT DeFaria DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Regardless, to me it's still would be a large security hole if all one > needs to do is: > > $ echo "+" > ~/.rhosts > > to be able to abuse rsh to do something under somebody else's user ID is > it not? rsh is inherently insecure. Attempts to make it secure are not worthwhile (in fact, they tend to break rsh). Especially in the land of NT insecurity, trying to make rsh secure simply makes it unusable. HTH, Peter > > > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/