Re: [ANN] Protect you Unix Shell Scripts!
From: Christopher Browne (cbbrowne_at_acm.org)
Date: 10/29/03
- Previous message: Bell: "Large run Queue"
- In reply to: Roger Leigh: "Re: [ANN] Protect you Unix Shell Scripts!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 29 Oct 2003 13:43:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when Roger Leigh <${roger}@invalid.whinlatter.uklinux.net.invalid> would write:
> It looks like a complete waste of time. Shell scripts have their
> place, and if I (for whatever reason) didn't want the source to be
> seen, or to allow setuid/setgid use, I'd use a proper compiled
> language, like C or C++. If you need setuid/setgid use, it takes all
> of five minutes to write a portable, platform-independent, C wrapper.
.. And based on the script I'll be working on today, they are _way_
too often implementing Rube Goldberg-like devices where it is somewhat
amazing that they work at all.
The scripts I see tend to fall into one of two categories:
1. Processes that are intended to be portable, and which I'd
probably rather be part of a free software project so I might
conceivably evade doing maintenance on it.
2. Processes that are hideously non-portable, implementing
things that are pretty much weird that probably only work
on one host.
In neither case is obfuscation of much value. In case 1, I wanted to
share the code. In case 2, the code is useless to anyone outside my
environment.
-- "aa454","@","freenet.carleton.ca" http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!
- Previous message: Bell: "Large run Queue"
- In reply to: Roger Leigh: "Re: [ANN] Protect you Unix Shell Scripts!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
