Date: 09 Oct 2001 09:09:02 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: code density vs readability Message-ID: <44d73xt0y9.fsf@lowellg.ne.mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: tms2@mail.ptd.net's message of "9 Oct 2001 09:32:40 %2B0800" References: <9ptk3o$14kg$1@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
tms2@mail.ptd.net ("T.M. Sommers") writes:
> "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> >
> > j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> writes:
> >
> > > I finally took several people's advice. I didn't give up VI, but emacs
> > > is amazing for big, complicated jobs.
> >
> > I've been using only Emacs (actually mostly XEmacs and some small Emacs
> > clones like Jed) for a long time, but recently decided it would be
> > better to try to force myself to use vi for editing as root. (I learned
> > it 20 years ago and liked the two-mode concept, but I've forgotten all
> > but the very basics.)
> >
> > I got to worrying about the amount of Emacs code there is and to suspect
> > that much of it changes often and is seen by only a few eyes and am
> > thinking it will be safer from a security standpoint to run vi.
> >
> > Is that overly paranoid? Do other people have this concern? Do many
> > people run XEmacs or Emacs as root on a regular basis? Does vim have a
> > lot of similarly suspectable code in it too?
>
> If memory serves, the Great Worm of '88 exploited a security hole in
> Emacs (among other things).
No. rsh, sendmail, and finger daemons. No user applications.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44d73xt0y9.fsf>