5 ms·
It really depends on the *nix you are running. FreeBSD, for example, only had bash as a port and it is not in the base install -- I believe `/bin/sh` is a deri
by stock_toaster 12y ago
It really depends on the *nix you are running.
FreeBSD, for example, only had bash as a port and it is not in the base install -- I believe `/bin/sh` is a derivative of ash[1].
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almquist_shell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almquist_shell
- arh68 12y agoI never really considered the importance of that. It always seemed like some weird crotchety UNIX thing to default to /bin/sh, and usually my first 30 minutes on a FreeBSD box are portsnapping, cd /usr/ports/shells/bash, and a make install clean. Now I get it
- ZoFreX 12y agoThe other reason is that bash has dependencies outside the core system and is therefore possible to totally break on FreeBSD. Never change root's shell to bash!
- _delirium 12y agoDebian also has a minimalist /bin/sh (via dash), but unlike FreeBSD they do ship bash in the base install, as the default interactive shell. Which is the default interactive shell doesn't matter much, since interactive shell usage isn't the likely vector of this exploit. However some Debian packages may explicitly call bash (rather than /bin/sh), since they can assume it's in the base install, while we know for sure no base FreeBSD packages do. I'm not sure whether anyone's done a survey yet of which Debian packages shell out to bash vs. dash vs. nothing.
- stock_toaster 12y agoI think Android uses mksh[1] these days too. [1]: http://www.all-things-android.com/content/mirbsd-korn-shell-android-shell http://www.all-things-android.com/content/mirbsd-korn-shell-...