[pass] [PATCH] Allow custom subcommands

[Brian Candler]

On 04/10/2016 05:45, Sylvain Viart wrote:
> Pass itself could be signed. By the user at init.
But why? Do you have a version of Linux which only executes signed 
scripts/binaries?

As for the admin being tricked into installing a malicious plugin - 
what's the difference between that and installing a malicious version of 
'pass' itself?

The only protection for 'pass' is installing it from a trusted location, 
and/or verifying the code by eye. Surely the same applies to plugins?

Regards,

Brian.