On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > > Consider su -c /etc/init.d/blah Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And if the PATH wasn't appended, how would su -c /etc/init.d/blah be any > different, except that it may not run?
So? It's not as if su -c is the only issue involved. And, not running is only relevant before these other issues are addressed. > If that's desired behavior, because we want to force users to not be > able to issue commands like that (even if they so desire) then that's > one thing. OTOH, it's not only a matter of root's PATH being changed > like everyone is making it out to be. The above su command is a good > example of another case where the proper PATH might not be available > unless the script appends what it needs. Except that you always need to think about security implications when dealing with activity which system priviledges. -- Raul
