Re: Busybox identification

Laurent Bercot via busybox <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月25日 星期三寫道：

>
>  This thread is bananas.
>
>  Run "busybox", without options or arguments.
>
>  If your shell gives you an error, you have no busybox binary in your PATH.
>  If your shell returns success, you have a busybox available in your PATH,
> and you can see on stdout:
>  - on the first line, what version of busybox it is
>  - after "Currently defined functions:", the list of applets that it
> includes.
>
>  You're welcome.
>
>
>
Just for your info, this is a bad advice.

For security reasons people might not want to run the program especially on
environments where it's not worth trusting every program installed.

The busybox binary would typically announce its presence through the
filename `/bin/busybox`. But keep in mind that BusyBox can be configured to
be a single-utility program, such as it can run `ls` only and exists as
`/bin/ls`.

So, a safer approach to test whether a program is a BusyBox implementation
is to find the "BusyBox" string within the binary (through strings(1) or
something else). If you trust the binary, you can also run the command with
`--version` option to see what it would output.

_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox