> if users can't be trusted with a shell, they can't be trusted with vi. > give 'em pico.
Agreed :-) > btw rbash is useful in situations like this. restricted shell, only > programs in the PATH can be executed, and user can not change PATH or > other variables. many other restrictions too. What does this gain you over making their actual shell the menu program? [that's not dissagreement, just curiosity] > even if they do manage to fork a shell somehow, they'll just get their > default shell which will source /etc/profile and end up with them > in another instance of the menu. there are probably ways for clever > users to get around this, but they all require the ability to execute > arbitrary commands...which is as good as having a shell anyway. Yep! Adam. ------------------------ Internet Alaska ------------------------- 4050 Lake Otis Adam Shand (v) +1 907 562 4638 Anchorage, Alaska Systems Administrator (f) +1 907 562 1677 ----------------- http://larry.earthlight.co.nz ------------------ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
