From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar  1 04:50:57 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA9916A4CE
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  1 Mar 2004 04:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.glbx.net (mx1.glbx.net [80.76.194.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE64F43D2D
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  1 Mar 2004 04:50:55 -0800 (PST)	(envelope-from andy@glbx.net)
Received: (qmail 33795 invoked by uid 1001); 1 Mar 2004 12:50:53 -0000
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:50:53 +0000
From: Andy Gilligan <andy@glbx.net>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040301125053.GA94405@vega.glbx.net>
References: <1298.213.224.103.192.1078085673.squirrel@webmail.boxke.be>
	<xzpvfloiwga.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <xzpvfloiwga.fsf@dwp.des.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Subject: Re: procfs + chmod = no go
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:50:58 -0000

On Mon,  1 Mar 2004 at 12:27, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> "Jimmy Scott" <admin@inet-solutions.be> writes:
> > Is this possible on FreeBSD 4.9 ? Can't find anything about it in the
> > manual pages. Just want to prevent lusers from running:
> >
> > for file in /proc/*/cmdline; do cat $file; echo; done
> 
> Why?  They can get the same information from ps(1) or the kern.proc
> sysctl tree.
> 
> (in 5.2, you can set security.bsd.see_other_uid to 0 to prevent users
> from seeing other users' processes)

Surely kern.ps_showallprocs would accomplish the same thing in 4.x ?

-Andy