Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:55:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Justin Ashworth <ashworth@fubar.cs.montana.edu> To: John Clark <jc@netview.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: blocking 'WHAT' in 'w' listing Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960806144627.8128A-100000@fubar.cs.montana.edu> In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960806150432.0099e604@netview.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, John Clark wrote: > Justin, > > >You're right, it would provide privacy, but who's going to stop > >somebody from doing a 'ps -U <username>' to find out what they're running? > > Same code in both ps & w, right? I don't know for sure, but that's a good point. If I were real concerned about it, I'd write a small program that filters it out of both of those commands. Hardcode the executable to execute ps and w, which may be hidden as .ps and .w in some obscure directory. It's kind of an ugly workaround, but I doubt that disabling it is built into the code. Actually, now that I think about it, grab 'ps' and 'w' out of the source tree and just compile them without those options. That would mean chopping a simple 'cout' or 'printf' command in 'w' and a few lines that look like they cater to the '-U' option in 'ps'. Go with my second suggestion. I got carried away with that first one before I realized the obvious best solution. - Justin J. Ashworth -- CS Student - Montana State University --- Chair, Association for Computing Machinery - MSU -- ashworth@cs.montana.edu - http://www.cs.montana.edu/~ashworth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.91.960806144627.8128A-100000>