On 5/21/19 9:10 AM, Jesper Wallin wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:34:05AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> Hello Jesper,
>>
>> The behaviour should be identical, the only difference would be that
>> pledge catches programming errors. So I see no particular reason to use
>> -S over "set
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:34:05AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Hello Jesper,
> On 5/20/19 10:58 PM, Jesper Wallin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > When ex/vi is started with -S (secure), a stricter pledge is used to
> > prevent exec from being used. It's tedious to specify -S all the time
> >
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:34:05AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Hello Jesper,
>
> The behaviour should be identical, the only difference would be that
> pledge catches programming errors. So I see no particular reason to use
> -S over "set secure" for normal users; even without pledge.
Hello Jesper,
On 5/20/19 10:58 PM, Jesper Wallin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When ex/vi is started with -S (secure), a stricter pledge is used to
> prevent exec from being used. It's tedious to specify -S all the time
> and easier to add "set secure" to ~/.nexrc. However, the check for
> which pledge
Hi all,
When ex/vi is started with -S (secure), a stricter pledge is used to
prevent exec from being used. It's tedious to specify -S all the time
and easier to add "set secure" to ~/.nexrc. However, the check for
which pledge to use doesn't care what your ~/.nexrc contains and the
exec promise
