Mod parent informative and informative.

Show us some OS source code or shut the hell up, shill.

OK, here's the full source to Apple's version of bash, and here is the source to the entire open part of OSX, including the XNU kernel.

Now YOU shut the fuck up, you clueless knuckle dragging cowardly fool,

Ahem. Apple is legally compelled to issue source code for whatever version of bash they use. It's called the GPL. For the rest of their core operating system (but not the proprietary GUI), yes, Apple voluntarily has released source code. It's mostly derived from BSD licensed stuff, and nothing compelled them to do so.

It is entirely possible to run bash on Windows, too. I'll let you figure out how. And the provider of that bash is compelled to make their source code available too.

He has no answer to that, and neither do the micro softies and apple corps who mod'ed him up.

Rename /bin/bash to /bin/bash.bak then create a link [cyberciti.biz] from /bin/dash to /bin/bash ..

And get ready for a whole lot of scripts failing. Scripts that start with #!/bin/sh but are written dependant on bash features will fail. Scripts that start with #!/bin/bash on the other hand will just fail to start. You'll have a busted-ass system, but at least it won't be attacked.

Now if you were running debian or ubuntu /bin/sh would already be a link to /bin/dash, and there wouldn't be any screwed up scripts because the design of the file layout was made by people who weren't brain dead.

Agreed, but that's not "using bash as the cgi handler". Not explicitly.

You're right; not only should you be unconvinced that he is right; he in fact misses the whole point and is completely mistaken.

You mod him up, and people who are smart will mod him down.

Try to understand, this is not about executing bash scripts as cgi, and it's not about sanitizing input. Period. It is about httpd setting environment variables from unsanitized user input when calling ANY cgi. And if perl or python or php then invoke bash by, for example, executing a call to system(), the environment gets passed to bash, and bash can be made to execute something bad just by having the environment set badly, and you can be pwned.

It took me a bit to "get it" myself.

The "With many eyes all bugs are shallow" myth is busted again.

I mean, isn't the fact that we're talking about this vulnerability at all thanks to the open-source nature of the software, and that someone has spotted the problem?

It would be pleasant to think so, but isn't it just as possible that the discovery of the exploit was thanks to eyes on the source code? I may be naive, but it's difficult for me to believe that someone thought up the attack vector from just thinking about shells in general.

I would have guessed that $75K figure would be higher.

75 grand is just the salary; not the accounting cost of employing one engineer. The latter is probably at least twice that figure. There are a lot of costs not paid to the employee directly: overhead/administration, employer matching 401k funding (used to be direct pension funding, but that's pretty much dead these days), employer share of "payroll" tax (Social Security), unemployment insurance, usually-to-almost-always health insurance, etc.

Also, the 75 grand is not what the employee actually gets in his pocket. Lots of stuff is taken out: employee 401k contribution, employee share of "payroll" tax, federal income tax withholding, usually state income tax withholding, sometimes municipal income tax withholding, etc.

The rotten level of engineer compensation in the U.S. is a sin when you compare it to the sky high pay and benefits showered on parasitic leeches such as government bureaucrats, politicians, judges and the like. It is also pretty pathetic compared to privileged lawyers and doctors, as well as other people who actually do genuine work, such as unionized laborers and (OK, this is stretching a bit) teachers.

Radiation == bad, got that.

Are you absolutely sure about that? In what context? Do you doubt that background radiation is instrumental in mutations that lie behind evolution? Have you wondered what life forms would exist on earth if there were no evolution?

For everything there is a level above which there is a danger or certain lethality, and below which it is often beneficial or even necessary. Too much [water, salt, potassium, calcium, ...] and you are a dead duck. Too little, and you are a dead duck. In the case of radiation, a reasonable amount almost certainly leads to benefits to humanity, while still harming some portion of individuals.

You haven't been mod'ed "funny" yet? Or is invoking a fictional horror story your serious argument?

I know, but I'm afraid it's no use pointing out facts. I'd like to think anti-nuke religious zealots could be reasoned with, and maybe a small percentage of them can, and possibly it's worthwhile trying, but for the most part they will just cotinue frothing. It's not as bad as the berserk murdering kind of religious zealoutry, but that doesn't mean the worst elements should get to dictate humanity's policy.

I have very serious reservations about nuclear power implementations, but it's about real problems, not boogeymen. As disappointed as I am with design shortcuts, safety levels which I feel must be made far better, whistling a happy tune instead of dealing with waste, and lackadaisical oversight, I still am in awe of the potential, and I believe that science and engineering are equal to the task if we will just unleash them in the commitment-equivalent of the manhattan project.

Let's face it. Human failings exist. We have a choice stemming from that axiom. We can either give up daring to advance, or we can learn from our mistakes, ensure that we never repeat the same ones, and expand our efforts to foresee new ones and avoid them. Specifically, both Chernobyl and Fukushima were perfectly foreseeable with the knowledge and insight that existed beforehand.

All right jackass, you've been shown to be full of shit and that's the best you can do, fine.

Ah yes, I see you are familiar with the elementary principle of tax progressivity.

News flash. You can make consumption taxes just as progressive as you wish. The most trivially obvious measure you can take toward this end is to exempt clothing and food expenses. Most state sales taxes do at least some of this. Clothing and food you buy simply ring up as untaxed on the register.

You can go well beyond this, too. Issue rebates, as inversely progressive as you wish. You pay a small amount of sales tax during the year? You get a lot of it back. Maybe all of it. Perhaps, more than you paid. You pay a gigantic amount of sales tax during the year (because you buy a lot of art and yachts)? You get only a tiny part of it rebated. I suppose if you by nature absolutely demand punishing success, you could cut off all rebates after some rich pricks spend, say $10 million in a year. It would make a vanishingly small difference in the overall redistribution picture, but it could be up for debate.

Housing expenses can be addressed with a fixed dollar amount lump rebate. If you rent a studio, the rebate might cover the complete rent, or even more. If you buy 12 mansions and permanently rent a penthouse on central park for the times you are in town, you get the same $10,000 rebate as the guy who only spends $8,000 on his housing.

You say rebates won't cut it because you have to pay now, and only get your rebates later? Fine. You can issue prebates. Look up "Fair Tax". This has all been long since figured out.