From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Aug 11 19:55:26 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA20806
          for security-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 19:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tok.qiv.com ([204.214.141.211])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA20801
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 19:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by tok.qiv.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with UUCP id VAA29635
	for security@freebsd.org; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:55:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost)
	by acp.qiv.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA01847
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:54:41 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: acp.qiv.com: jdn owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:54:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Jay D. Nelson" <jdn@qiv.com>
To: security@freebsd.org
Subject: Yet another proc question
In-Reply-To: <199708111532.IAA08173@kithrup.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970811215027.1842A-100000@acp.qiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Sean, you had mentioned that ps uses /proc. I simply unmounted /proc
and ps, w, etc. seem to work just fine -- at least with the flags I
use all the time.

What practical benefit is there to the proc filesystem on a production
machine?

-- Jay