From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Aug 11 21:21:36 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA26794
          for security-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26788
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA28536; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:21:31 -0700
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:21:31 -0700
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199708120421.VAA28536@kithrup.com>
To: security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Yet another proc question
References: <199708111532.IAA08173@kithrup.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.970811215027.1842A-100000.kithrup.freebsd.security@acp.qiv.com> you write:
>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.

Perhaps you should look again -- no command line arguments are printed.  For
some people, that is acceptable.  For others, it is not.

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

ps.  w.  truss.  Potentially, future versions of debuggers.

Oh, well, truss isn't out yet.  But it does work; I just checked the changes
with my code, it still works.