in reply to Re: Is there a way with IPC::Run to hide command options from process table?
in thread Is there a way with IPC::Run to hide command options from process table?

Browser, I always love and respect your comments, as well as the guidance that you provide. However, there are cases where data need not be displayed in the process table. Let us take a simple usermod example to illustrate the point. Would one really want to display in the process table?

Linux:
  /usr/sbin/usermod -p <value> account
HP-UX:
  /usr/sam/lbin/usermod.sam -p <value> account

[download]

The point is that there are cases where one is just better off not displaying every command argument in the process table regardless of device ownership.

  • Comment on Re^2: Is there a way with IPC::Run to hide command options from process table?
  • Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Is there a way with IPC::Run to hide command options from process table?
by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Jul 23, 2013 at 13:56 UTC

    IIRC, you are still able to get that information by inspecting the information associated with the process table entry. This will only give a false sense of security.

    That being said, it is sometimes helpful to set what shows in the process table (with default ps options) to something that actually means something to the viewer, such as what Sendmail does (sendmail: accepting connections on port....)

    --MidLifeXis

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
Re^3: Is there a way with IPC::Run to hide command options from process table?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 23, 2013 at 14:23 UTC

    Hm. You mean that information is visible to other users? Sounds like a security flaw in *nix.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

      There is no argument there! UNIX has numerous "features" what are less than optimal. Being the glutton for punishment that I am, I still love UNIX. So to your point, yes the information is visible and that is not always a good thing.

[reply]
        So to your point, yes the information is visible and that is not always a good thing.

        Then I guess you legitimised your requirement :) How about:

        #! perl
...
my $pid = open CMD, '|-', 'usermod', '-p', ...;
print CMD 'password';
close CMD;

        [download]

        Presumably you can secure the script.

        You can then take it a step further and put the password, probably encrypted, in a hidden, only-readable-by-the-current-user, file, and arrange for the perl script to read that file, decrypt the password and then supply it to the command via the pipe.

        Thus you can make the script generally available, but only usable from accounts that have the appropriate file, with an appropriately encrypted password, in the appropriate place.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom