4 ms·
I understand what you're saying but if anybody on your machine can read the commands, can't they also read your configuration files? Or are you saying a differe
by fitzn 6y ago
I understand what you're saying but if anybody on your machine can read the commands, can't they also read your configuration files? Or are you saying a different user on the machine can run `ps` and see my processes but not necessarily my portion of the file system? My thought is if the file is not encrypted on the disk, then any desktop application can read it. So, while I agree that preventing a user from reading bash history is not worth it if they can read your processes, aren't configuration files (if unencrypted) just as insecure?
- mturmon 6y agoIn a Unix system, files have 3 levels of permissions — for the user who owns the file, the group-of-users that owns the file, and any system user. So, a given config file can have permissions so that the file owner can read and write, but other users cannot. Like your ssh keys. But ‘ps’ can be run by anyone, and it can typically access the whole command line you used.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoThis is true but in a typical desktop usecase there is one user.
- fitzn 6y agoAh, right. This makes a lot of sense. Thank you!