On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:20:40PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > :
> > BTW, I *never* have *any* user writeable directory before the
> > system binary directories, in *my* PATH; but, I guess it would
> > be naive to expect everybody to follow that piece of simple
> > security advice.
>
> Obviously you're doing the Right Thing in this regard, but I
> find it sometimes convenient to "replace" some system programs
> with other versions or with wrappers with added functionality,
> and these must come before the "normal" programs in PATH if you
> don't always want to type the complete path to the executable
> (or remeber a new name for each).
This idea that _MY_ version of ls is better than the one everyone else uses
is something that goes back to the dawn of UNIX. ((Insert long involved story
where customer complains that a Makefile is broken because it doesn't work with
his version of ls here.))
But it is _OH_ so convenient!
So what I _try_ to do and usually do ((insert lecture on human failings here))
is to name my personal versions of commands, and personal commands, starting
with captical letters; a sampling:
A Lpr Ntrigue Rlogin WhoIs
Acroread M Ooffice Ssh XTERM
CI Make Pr T Xanim
Date Man Ps Vnoai Xclock
Locate Netscape Psmm Whitelist Xfig
Lpq Nslookup
Two advantages:
CI doesn't interfere with ci
When I use CI in my other shell scripts I can see that I'm probably
using features contained there. When it is ci I _know_ I'm sticking
to the standard.
Does it guarantee security? No. But all those files marked unwritable, and if
I was really smart ~/bin would be too.
--
Mike Bianchi
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
