nc "gaping security hole" menu config entry??

[Natanael Copa]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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.

Every time I see people asking questions about this name, I get more
convinced how good the name is. :-)

It works like this: If you don't know what it does, you either find it
out or turn it off.

I have read the source (I even think I have a print somewhere) and I
vote for keeping the name.

--
Natanael Copa