From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dave@horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:49:54 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] Shell control through external commands
In-Reply-To: <201609110501.u8B51nCK016335@freefriends.org>
References: <201607151647.u6FGlqvW037575@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU>
 <20160910174011.GF5970@dnied%tiscali.it>
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1609110842190.78806@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <006301d20bcb$43ae03b0$cb0a0b10$@ronnatalie.com>
 <201609110239.u8B2dgDJ010272@freefriends.org>
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1609111404230.78806@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <201609110501.u8B51nCK016335@freefriends.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1609121548320.78806@aneurin.horsfall.org>

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, arnold at skeeve.com wrote:

> > Correct; if the exec failed then the invoking shell assumed that it 
> > was a shell script, and spawned a shell to run it.
> 
> I think this happened in the "spawned" shell - so the exec would fail and
> then this child shell would just run the script.

Oops - you're right.  My organic bit-rot is worse than I thought...

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."