Reply to post:

Bash bug: Shellshocked yet? You will be ... when this goes WORM

Jim 59

Yes, I pretty much would bet my life on webcams et al not using bash, for sound economic/engineering reasons. Bash is a big, big program and needs a full computing environment to run. The binary alone is over 1 MB, almost twice the size of Busybox. Even a quiescent bash instance takes several MB of memory to run, plus many libraries, plus all the other programs the user will call. Manufacturers use Busybox because it replaces all that. I have never seen an embedded device that had standalone Bash. Big NAS boxes conceivably, but I have never seen it.

The bigger danger is web servers. I saw Graham's shellshock scan at 8:20 this morning in my logs, and patched the server an hour ago. And devices like Raspberry Pi's where the user has it internet facing for

Bigger items

On the other hand, internet facing NAS devices might

systems would be out of business.

To run it, the IP webcam would have to be running a full linux kernel/environment and have

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019