Re: Hidden Processes
From: Alex Banks (alex@alexbanks.com)
Date: 04/08/03
- Previous message: /dev/null: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- In reply to: Jem Berkes: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Next in thread: Wojtek Walczak: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Reply: Wojtek Walczak: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Alex Banks" <alex@alexbanks.com> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:58:57 +0100
"Jem Berkes" <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9356BD517F9C3jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73...
> Sorry about how I worded that, others pointed it out too. I meant that pid
> stands for the process ID, a numeric value.
Sorry, I didn't make it clear in my initial reply - I can see my pids in the
/proc directory, but I can't see anyone elses.
> Unless they've done something seriously screwy with the kernel, you should
> see the process IDs if you ls /proc. And inside each of those directories
> is information on running processes.
Oh yes!
Alex
---------------------------
http://www.alexite.com
- Previous message: /dev/null: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- In reply to: Jem Berkes: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Next in thread: Wojtek Walczak: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Reply: Wojtek Walczak: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|