Very Strange

[Jordan Rudderham]

Kip Warner wrote:
>> The reason that omitting the path to the current directory works on
>> Windows is that by default Windows includes the current directory in
>> your path.  On most UNIX-like systems, the path does not by default
>> include the current directory for security reasons (if you're root and
>> you type "ls" in someone's home directory and that directory that has
>> an malicious "ls" binary in it, the malicious "ls" binary would be
>> executed if the current directory is before /bin (or wherever the real
>> "ls" is) in your path).
>>     
>
> Exactly. And this goes back all the way to the old MS-DOS days. It was a
> problem then too.
>
>   
    Okay, yeah, that does make sense, and helps me understand it a bit 
more, I guess the computers I'm used to working on at my university (Red 
Hat and Solaris) all included the working directory in the path.