Comment on 3rd Shellshock Vulnerability FoundparentComments−dahjelle11yAs I mentioned in my other comment[1], I'm not 100% sure, but I think RedHat's patches for the 2nd vulnerability also cover this one.[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8373320−rootbear11yBut which behavior is correct? On Ubuntu, ls is redefined, but isn't that what a shell function is supposed to do? If Red Hat "fixed" this, then haven't they disabled a feature? Sorry, not trying to be obtuse...−dahjelle11yGood question, I don't know…but looks like mzs's comment answers us both. ;-)
Comments
As I mentioned in my other comment[1], I'm not 100% sure, but I think RedHat's patches for the 2nd vulnerability also cover this one.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8373320
But which behavior is correct? On Ubuntu, ls is redefined, but isn't that what a shell function is supposed to do? If Red Hat "fixed" this, then haven't they disabled a feature? Sorry, not trying to be obtuse...
Good question, I don't know…but looks like mzs's comment answers us both. ;-)