From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:55:36 +0000
Message-ID: <20140926165536.Horde.zSt4YsUnGF67-VxTNhnw9A3@ssl.eumx.net>
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
References: <CAL0h+tWUCrwWoTSeLz+Kx1yqKwKqwDBZZbH7fLe-PWXjLSgWWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADSkJJWP=cdMxXFH_Oo04Cp2tTxfD6kTTeXx22N6BOBBmj3fLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140926163212.Horde.kuocVrN6KLWBJ9UPAJ0X3Q1@ssl.eumx.net>
	<CAJSxfmJziKuERcDs6H+6bs5CVjfNv_Ddq1vbo75eqiViQyXSCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJSxfmJziKuERcDs6H+6bs5CVjfNv_Ddq1vbo75eqiViQyXSCQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.6)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [9fans] shell functions
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 173b3500-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Quoting Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com>:

> you misrepresent. rsc addressed the non-web-centric issue:
>
>> I don't think it is super important to try to make rc defend against
> malicious environments, any more than
>> it is to make it somehow defend against malicious $paths. If those are
> security-relevant, you've already lost.

I misrepresent nothing, since I'm talking about what needs fixing in
bash.  I agree that rc doesn't need any patching -- to subvert rc like
this you need to be able to *name* the variables.  The problem with bash
is that it's not just HTTP_ variables, but ALL variables that contain () {
in them *anywhere*  get evaled in full.  Russ is advocating patching one
attack vector instead of fixing the actual problem, and I disagree about
that being a good idea.

khm