Search:

Yeah, I can see argv[0] being checked, and yes, renaming the executable to something else would do the same thing, as would copying it to another name, etc etc...so many ways to do the same thing,...

That's what I'm talking about. I could care less about the actual application itself, I'm more concerned with the symlink acting the way it is. I've already stated before that symlinks are just...

That's f'ing odd. Symbolic links aren't supposed to act that way and if they're modifying the way the binary is called and using the symlink to determine what happens, I can almost guarantee not many...

Yeah, there must be some weird way it's being called because symlinks pass all arguments to the actual binary being executed although I've never seen what rcgreen's going through on any other system...

Dude that's weird...lemme run through one time on what I know about symlinks that's known as fact:

1: symlinks can cross file systems
2: symlinks are owned by root and permissions are ignored on...

All a symbolic link is, is a pointer from one "file" to another "file". The reason those are in " is because *everything* in *nix is considered a file, whether it's a file, directory, block device,...