Christopher Nehren <apeiron_at_comcast.net> writes: > You don't happen to be using procfs on a 5.x system, do you? procfs is > notoriously insecure (and, in my opinion, its very functionality is > insecure -- you shouldn't be able to see anything about anyone else's > processes. Period.). If you are certain that procfs in 5.x contains actual security holes, you should file a PR so I can fix them. If not, please stop spreading FUD. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des_at_des.noReceived on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 06:49:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:16 UTC