nc "gaping security hole" menu config entry??
Robert P. J. Day
rpjday at mindspring.com
Wed Apr 19 14:35:49 UTC 2006
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 17 April 2006 18:57, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> > > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > > yes, it's amusing, but perhaps someone can come up with a better
> > > > name for the nc "-e" option than GAPING_SECURITY_HOLE?
> > > >
> > > > rday
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > FWIW, that's what the original netcat source called it. If
> > > compiling from original sources, you'd have to
> > > -DGAPING_SECURITY_HOLE.
> > >
> > > (http://www.vulnwatch.org/netcat/readme.html)
> >
> > ok, this is one of those cases where i *don't* feel at all bound
> > by historical precedent.
>
> if you ever read through the netcat source, the option name makes
> sense ... personally i'd just keep it as is ;)
sorry. i don't feel the need to actually RTFS to suggest that this is
a thoroughly useless option name and should be changed.
rday
More information about the busybox
mailing list