Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by
	smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVa7UD3Aukq6PfLx/HVWLaeCMCXCkpg5TRzQdAt7FhQ6JpJgzHf2jfLQ
Message-ID: <3EFF1958.20308@cygwin.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:52:40 -0400
From: Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Houppermans <houppermans AT home DOT nl>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: free pascal cross compiler from windows to linux working.
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0306282256180 DOT 22307-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <002901c33dec$7462bcf0$395d79d9 AT cp250405a>
In-Reply-To: <002901c33dec$7462bcf0$395d79d9@cp250405a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Houppermans wrote:


>>>So other weird red hat linux server behaviour... I have to use:  ./hello
>>>( just hello does work on knoppix )
>>>
>>>That's probably a red hat linux server setting... ./ means current
> 
> folder...
> 
>>>Just wondering what that is all about.
>>
>>"." is not in the PATH by default on most Unixes, as that introduces a
>>security hole.
> 
> 
> Why is putting the current path in the path variable a security hole ?


That's really a question for another list.  Still, just think about all
the exploit possibilities that exist if you have a path with a constantly
changing state and without a defined set of permissions.  I don't think
it's a stretch to state that this is a less secure environment than the
reverse.


>>IMHO, it's unlikely that Linux can destroy NTFS partitions that it only
>>has read-only access to.  I've been wrong before, though...
> 
> 
> Well it sounds to scary for me :D


Don't be scared.  The read-only NTFS driver for Linux has been stable
for years.  With the exception of disk partitioning tools, which are
expected to manipulate partitions and therefore very likely will destroy
existing data, there's nothing in Linux that's going to damage your
NTFS partition.  The read-write version of the NTFS driver is another
story however.  Still, this all seems pretty off-topic for this list
as well.


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/