On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Ben Scott wrote: > The one saving grace there is that bitty boxes often don't install > Bash, since Bash has a relatively large footprint[1]. They'll often > go with a smaller shell, like zsh, nash, dash, etc. Of course, you > can't *depend* on this without checking first. And good luck getting > answers from your typical bitty box vendor.
Most opensource based routers have a reduced footprint shell, and many use the BusyBox core shell which provides whatever shell tools the router may have available. BusyBox is based on the "ash" shell which may or may not be vulnerable.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox
