Re: ping

[Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:05:03PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 13 Nov 2022 at 14:50:58 (+0000), Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 06:04:51AM -0800, peter@easthope.ca wrote:
> > > root@joule:/home/root# /bin/ping -c 3  192.168.0.12
> > > PING 192.168.0.12 (192.168.0.12) 56(84) bytes of data.
> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.12: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.079 ms
> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.12: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.114 ms
> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.12: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.113 ms
> > > 
> > > --- 192.168.0.12 ping statistics ---
> > > 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2041ms
> > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.079/0.102/0.114/0.016 ms
> > > root@joule:/home/root# echo $PATH
> > > /usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin:.
> 
> Nobody has commented on that final period yet …  …  …  …  …  …   ↑

I didn't see it.  Yeah, that's *nasty*.  I don't think it's directly
related to whatever the OP's current problem is, but it's a trap waiting
to strike.

The OP is clearly not running a standard Debian system.  With root's
home directory having been moved, and now with some evidence that the
PATH given to root has a massive security hole in it, I'm convinced
this is some derivative OS.

Perhaps whoever put the ":." on root's PATH is also responsible for
the alias or function that's overriding "ping".  I'm starting to get
rather curious about this whole situation.