> Unfortunately you're using a browser (or client library) that my anti-crawler precautions consider suspicious because it's sending inconsistent values for Sec-CH-UA-* HTTP request headers...
The world doesn't exclusively use Chrome. Nice to see even the nerds are contributing to the closed web.
It's also moaning about me coming from a datacentre IP (proxy) with some vague complaints about load introduced by AI crawlers. I think this guy treats "protecting" his site as a hobby.
The main practical win is that cmd args show up in `ps aux` for anyone on the system to see, whereas stdin keeps it off that list.
re: the /proc concerns - true, but if someones got same-user access to read your /proc/pid/fd, they can probably ptrace you or read process memory anyway. stdin is more about basic hygiene than stopping sophisticated attackers.
tbh for anything actually sensitive I've been leaning toward tmpfs files with strict perms, or using something like vault/age. stdin is a nice middle ground tho for quick scripts.
For one of my projects my server needs a private key, and it reads this from a file descriptor on startup and then closes the fd. The fd is set up by the systemd unit, which is also configured to restrict filesystem access for the server. So the server reads a key from a file that is never visible in its mount namespace.
I used to do that, I had a sort of IDE that launched a local server, bound to localhost.
The launching process would send a random password through stdin to the child after launch, and the child would use that to authenticate the further RPC calls.
It's surprisingly hard to intercept a process' stdin stream.
not a Linux expert, but I believe that at the very least it's time sensitive: after consumer process reads it, it's gone from the pipe. Unlike env vars and cli argument that stay there.
Yes pipes are exposed /proc/$pid/fd/$thePipeFd with user permissions [0].
Additionally command line parameters are always readable /proc/$YOUR_PROCESS_PID/cmdline [1]
There are workarounds but it's fragile. You may accept the risks and in that case it can work for you but I wouldn't recommend it for "general security". Seems it wouldn't be considered secure if everyone did it this way, therefore is it security through obscurity?
Interesting approach. I like Docker/Kubernetes way of secret mounts where you can limit user/group permissions too.
Meanwhile, I was an avid user of the echo secret | ssh consume approach, specifically for the kerberos authentication.
In my workflow, I saved the kerberos password to the macOS keychain, where kinit --use-keychain authenticated me seamlessly. However this wasn't the case for remote machines.
Therefore, I have implemented a quick script that is essentially
> Unfortunately you're using a browser (or client library) that my anti-crawler precautions consider suspicious because it's sending inconsistent values for Sec-CH-UA-* HTTP request headers...
The world doesn't exclusively use Chrome. Nice to see even the nerds are contributing to the closed web.
It's also moaning about me coming from a datacentre IP (proxy) with some vague complaints about load introduced by AI crawlers. I think this guy treats "protecting" his site as a hobby.
I'm using Firefox and didn't see that message.
Nor on Safari. I wonder what exotic browser the parent is using?
Doesn't appear to be Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Edge, or Falkon on Linux, doesn't appear to be Falkon on Haiku.
I also wonder what they're using and where can I get some so I can break stuff too?
> Falkon
In case anyone is wondering: https://www.falkon.org/about/
Also site is not accessible via Mullvad VPN.
I am on Mullvad (at the router), and I am able to connect.
Checks out, it was my preferred exit node.
I am on ungoogled chromium and I see this
The main practical win is that cmd args show up in `ps aux` for anyone on the system to see, whereas stdin keeps it off that list.
re: the /proc concerns - true, but if someones got same-user access to read your /proc/pid/fd, they can probably ptrace you or read process memory anyway. stdin is more about basic hygiene than stopping sophisticated attackers.
tbh for anything actually sensitive I've been leaning toward tmpfs files with strict perms, or using something like vault/age. stdin is a nice middle ground tho for quick scripts.
> The main practical win is that cmd args show up in `ps aux` for anyone on the system to see, whereas stdin keeps it off that list.
For those interested, re-mounting /proc with hidepid can prevent this:
For one of my projects my server needs a private key, and it reads this from a file descriptor on startup and then closes the fd. The fd is set up by the systemd unit, which is also configured to restrict filesystem access for the server. So the server reads a key from a file that is never visible in its mount namespace.
I do something similar with LoadCredential and it is quite amazing, especially when you want to run the application as a dynamic user.
I used to do that, I had a sort of IDE that launched a local server, bound to localhost.
The launching process would send a random password through stdin to the child after launch, and the child would use that to authenticate the further RPC calls.
It's surprisingly hard to intercept a process' stdin stream.
I haven't actually tested this, but aren't the input and output handles exposed on /proc/? What's stopping another process from seeing everything?
not a Linux expert, but I believe that at the very least it's time sensitive: after consumer process reads it, it's gone from the pipe. Unlike env vars and cli argument that stay there.
I guess the kernel is stopping that. I don't think permission wise you'd have the privileges to read someone else's stdin/out.
Yes pipes are exposed /proc/$pid/fd/$thePipeFd with user permissions [0].
Additionally command line parameters are always readable /proc/$YOUR_PROCESS_PID/cmdline [1]
There are workarounds but it's fragile. You may accept the risks and in that case it can work for you but I wouldn't recommend it for "general security". Seems it wouldn't be considered secure if everyone did it this way, therefore is it security through obscurity?
[0] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/156859/is-the-data-...
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3830823/hiding-secret-fr...
Interesting approach. I like Docker/Kubernetes way of secret mounts where you can limit user/group permissions too.
Meanwhile, I was an avid user of the echo secret | ssh consume approach, specifically for the kerberos authentication.
In my workflow, I saved the kerberos password to the macOS keychain, where kinit --use-keychain authenticated me seamlessly. However this wasn't the case for remote machines.
Therefore, I have implemented a quick script that is essentially
Which served me really good for the last 4~years.linux has a key api that works pretty well
man keyctl