Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:24:50 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Manish Jain <bourne.identity@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: A request to segregate man pages for shell built-ins Message-ID: <44r2tpmr0d.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <20171026214620.bf8fcbf2.freebsd@edvax.de> (Polytropon's message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:46:20 %2B0200") References: <mailman.113.1509019202.90583.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> <20171027021115.A40402@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <20171026214620.bf8fcbf2.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> writes: > Yes, this is true as long as the script uses [ or test. Some do > explicitely call /bin/test. I'm almost sure this isn't true anymore > on today's modern FreeBSD, but older UNIX scripts occassionally > were constructed in such a way that they called the binaries > explicitely with the full path. Maybe this has been some portability > issue. It's more of a security issue. If you call it with the full path, you know, absolutely, which flavor of the command will be used.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44r2tpmr0d.fsf>