From owner-freebsd-current Fri Sep 18 09:49:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA19198 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:49:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hillbilly.hayseed.net (hillbilly.hayseed.net [204.62.130.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA19193 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:49:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from enkhyl@hayseed.net) Received: from hillbilly.hayseed.net (hillbilly.hayseed.net [204.62.130.2]) by hillbilly.hayseed.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA07727; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:48:40 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:48:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Enkhyl To: Bob Bishop cc: Doug White , Andrzej Bialecki , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Limit 'ps' to show only user's processes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Bob Bishop wrote: > At 1:05 pm -0700 17/9/98, Doug White wrote: > > > >So rewire ps to default to -U uid? Or make it impossible for anyone > >except the superuser to see all processes? > > NOOOOOO! > > Ahem, sorry for the outburst, but please consider that if unpriv users > can't see all processes thay will forever plague people like me with "Is > the xyz server running?". It's bad enough now... I think the idea here is to make it a sysctl option. -- Christopher Nielsen Scient: The Art and Science of Electronic Business cnielsen@scient.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message