What to do about rcmdsh(3) ?

[O'Connor, Daniel]

> On 1 Jul 2018, at 13:12, Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> wrote:
>> You could just leave the call, I assume it will fail with an error if rsh isn't in the path.
> 
> It will fail unconditionally since the call looks explicitly for
> /bin/rsh. Is it wrong to change the implementation to use PATH?I have
> not looked closely, but are there security implications to trusting
> the environment?

Hmm I see..
I think it could still be OK if the hypothetical rsh port had an option to add a symlink to /bin.

--
Daniel O'Connor
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
 -- Andrew Tanenbaum