On 3/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The untainting itself however happens just before the error is thrown, so think it's more about estabilishing in precisely which conditions the m// operator loses it's ability to untaint and coming up with the most trivial demonstration of that we can.
This might be a silly question, but what makes you think this has to do with tainting? If it was a taint problem, wouldn't it say "Insecure dependency in eval while running with -T switch"? It's complaining about eval while running setgid. (I know you said you aren't running setgid, but I think you should be trying to figure out why it thinks it's setgid, not why something is tainted.) - Perrin
