-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/12/12 12:00, [email protected] wrote: > Can you elaberate on how ksh is more secure? Chris, Bash is open source so the source code is available, hence a modified version might be installed - obviously proper setup; configurations and permission reduces that. The source of ksh is not available
I may be wrong, but I find the .bash_profile permissions need to be more relaxed than the ksh's .profile. This latter I set to owned by root and readable by owner and group With the user in the appropriate group. NB I do not use the alternative ksh but the ksh93 available from the Korn shell site. Also I understand that the user can turn off history in bash but this is not so easily done in ksh. Then as a separate issue, not really to do with security, ksh is common to AIX, HPUX etc ... So I can use and create general *nix scripts with it. The only security related item here is that of having available a large commercial user group who can assist debugging etc. cheers pwl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlDd6Q0ACgkQnbH2cLovUvJlfQCguN+taQalgCGrVdRRWmkDIlgn xu0AnAsIq+JHMJFH+O4z/kdUEa2OzceE =UJEp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2013-01-08 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ New thread on mailing list: mailto:[email protected] How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
