From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bob Proulx Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Does anyone really use emacs in terminal? Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:49:06 -0600 Message-ID: <20130508194906.GA11349@hysteria.proulx.com> References: <0b72021c-139f-4269-8e81-5b5ef97fb83d@googlegroups.com> <8761yu64e4.fsf@Servus.decebal.nl> <87r4higq45.fsf@gmail.com> <87ip2tyftv.fsf@yahoo.fr> <87sj1xs9df.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368042566 18818 80.91.229.3 (8 May 2013 19:49:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 19:49:26 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 08 21:49:26 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UaAMc-0003P1-2M for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 21:49:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45467 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaAMb-0000el-Ov for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 15:49:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44071) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaAMO-0000dn-KE for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 15:49:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaAMN-0001hY-Nr for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 15:49:08 -0400 Original-Received: from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]:44314) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UaAMN-0001hU-Fa for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 15:49:07 -0400 Original-Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35FA211DB for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:49:06 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5E7DA2DC49; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:49:06 -0600 (MDT) Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sj1xs9df.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 216.17.153.58 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:90555 Archived-At: Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > # emacs -nw > > > > And surely everyone on this list would agree that emacs is a good > > editor for root to use. > > Yes. However, you must be conscious of the theorical possibility of > emacs lisp viruses thru file and directory local variables. But emacs will always ask you if it should proceed due to that issue. It will never do it automatically. It isn't intrinsically insecure. > If you find-file in a directory where a malicious user has written a > .dir-locals.el file, he could theorically take advantage of it to root > you. Of course, normally emacs ask permission to evaluate a form, or to > set any variable he doesn't know to be safe. But if you type y or ! > carelessly, you can be hosed. But only if you approve using the local setting. And you would need to be exposed to hostile user attack in order to trigger it. If it is your laptop with you as the only user that is unlikely and answer yes without thinking probably won't hurt you. You can think less. You are more safe on your own machine where only you work. If you are an admin of a university system with clever kids poking at the system with social engineering attacks then you need to be more vigilant. But then you should always be vigilant in a hostile environment such as those. Bob