Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-11-09 18:10, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> i.e. here's an ftp session on my laptop: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/root# fgrep ftp: /etc/passwd >> ftp:*:1003:1003:& user:/home/ftp:/usr/sbin/nologin >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/root# su ftp >> [

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Chuck Robey
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2007-11-09 18:55, Andrew Pantyukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:39:12PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I've been using the following for some time: keramida> su - Password: root# exec env SHELL=/usr/local/bin/bash bash

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Alex Zbyslaw
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2007-11-09 16:34, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ discussing `su -m' option ] Also the only way I know on FreeBSD to interactively become a user with no real shell (true, nologin etc). It should be possible to type: su username i.e. her

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-11-09 16:34, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ discussing `su -m' option ] > > Also the only way I know on FreeBSD to interactively become a user > with no real shell (true, nologin etc). It should be possible to type: su username i.e. here's an ftp session on my lapt

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Alex Zbyslaw
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2007-11-09 18:55, Andrew Pantyukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:39:12PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I've been using the following for some time: keramida> su - Password: root# exec env SHELL=/usr/local/bin/bas

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-11-09 18:55, Andrew Pantyukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:39:12PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > I've been using the following for some time: > > > > keramida> su - > > Password: > > root# exec env SHELL=/usr/local/bin/bash bash -l > >

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Andrew Pantyukhin
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:39:12PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2007-10-29 20:50, Stephen Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > > fails or is updated sig

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-09 Thread Bill Vermillion
"Ang utong ko ay sasabog sa sarap!" exclaimed [EMAIL PROTECTED] while reading this message on Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 12:00 and then responded with: > Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:42:08 -0500 (EST) > From: Darren Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Dangers of using a

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-11-08 Thread Darren Henderson
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Roland Smith wrote: But if you're starting in single user mode, only / will be mounted. So if you have /usr or /usr/local on a separate partition, you'd be screwed. That is why root should only use a shell that's in the / partition. You'll be prompted for a shell if your

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread James
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 20:50 +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. > The suggested solution was t

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Josh Carroll
> It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. > The suggested solution was to use a base shell (such as sh) and append > 'bash -l' to .s

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread RW
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:50:40 + Stephen Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. It's only

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Roland Smith
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports collection, > because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) fails or is > updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. The suggested > solution

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Bill Campbell
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007, Stephen Allen wrote: >It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports >collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) >fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. >The suggested solution was to use a base shell

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Erik Osterholm
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. > The suggested solution

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Daniel Bye
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. Hmm, I guess it *could*

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Daniel Bye
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. Hmm, I guess it *could*

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Vince
Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. > The suggested solution was to use a base shell (such as sh) and app

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Michaël Grünewald
Stephen Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent > login. The suggested solution was to use a base shel

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Benjamin M. A'Lee
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports collection, > because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) fails or is > updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. The suggested > solution

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-10-29 20:50, Stephen Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports > collection, because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) > fails or is updated significantly, it could break, and prevent > login. The suggested solution was

Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell

2007-10-30 Thread Olivier Nicole
> The quite annoying side-effect is having to type 'exit' twice to get out > of a su shell or screen. It seems that another anoying effect is that it breaks scp(1) Best regards, Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freeb