Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Alternate Shells Message-ID: <1442@hammer.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 13:13:29 EDT Article-I.D.: hammer.1442 Posted: Sun Aug 18 13:13:29 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 01:11:12 EDT References: <10672@Glacier.ARPA> <575@bu-cs.UUCP> <615@ucsfcgl.UUCP> Reply-To: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm Lines: 22 Summary: Don't bozo-proof chsh, use "block" !! In article <615@ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes: >I helped make this decision -- it was because people who left their >terminals unattended for a few minutes (to relieve themselves, say) >would find themselves with a strange shell the next time they logged >on. A rather poor reason to limit the usefulness of chsh. Haven't you heard about "block" (also known as "lock", etc.) a program which requires you to type in your password before letting you do anything? (without having to go through all the grief of logging out and back in again) Bozo-proofing chsh does nothing about all the other interesting things that can happen to your account if you leave your terminal unlocked. Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert These opinions should be considered mine, not those of Tektronix. In this case they do appear to agree, since Utek's chsh isn't fascist.