oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous?
From: Heiko Schlittermann <hs () schlittermann de>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:58:02 +0100
Georgi Guninski <gguninski () gmail com> (Mo 09 Dez 2019 14:23:16 CET):
==== $rm -rf /tmp/1 ;mkdir /tmp/1 ; cd /tmp/1 ; tar cf a.tar /etc/issue $ : > --to-command="yes .tar" #end creating, starts PoC tar xf *.tar
That's not a technical fault. It's a fault on the human side. If you call the above command in a typical Bourne shell, you should be prepared to handle the trouble. Smart admins don't do that. If an application calls the above command via system(), you should file a bug against that application. Smart programmers know how to avoid the shell for such invocations (or avoid such invocations in the first place.) Best regards from Dresden/Germany Viele Grüße aus Dresden Heiko Schlittermann -- SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support - Heiko Schlittermann, Dipl.-Ing. (TU) - {fon,fax}: +49.351.802998{1,3} - gnupg encrypted messages are welcome --------------- key ID: F69376CE - ! key id 7CBF764A and 972EAC9F are revoked since 2015-01 ------------ -
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description:
Current thread:
- Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Georgi Guninski (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Noel Kuntze (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Leonid Isaev (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Noel Kuntze (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Leonid Isaev (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Noel Kuntze (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Leonid Isaev (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Leonid Isaev (Dec 09)
- Re: Shell wildcards considered dangerous? Noel Kuntze (Dec 09)