Re: Why isn't . in the path? (Was: nmbd problems...)

[Scott Roy Atwood <atwood@cs.stanford.edu>]

* _azure <azure@gh0st.net> [010126 14:12]:
> 
> On the other hand, . is usually listed last when it's in the path.  As 
> long as the original programs are still in place, it should never *get*
> to check /usr/local or . for the stock binaries.

But a clever hacker would use binaries named "sl" or "mr", which are
common misspellings of common commands.  These would *not* be picked up
by stock binaries in the rest of your path, but *would* be picked up by
"." if you were in the directory that contained them.

-- 
Scott Atwood
atwood@cs.stanford.edu