News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Attacking Unix Systems via Cups, Part I. Parent comment

Re:Attacking Unix Systems via Cups, Part I by jeffbee on Thursday September 26, 2024 @04:33PM (#41663023)
It's because of the frankly idiotic idea of persistent print queues. If you want to have this artifact that survives a user session, then the print subsystem needs super-user abilities.

ChromeOS does away with the whole idea. There are no persistent printer queues or jobs. Artifacts of the printing subsystem have lifetime tied to the user session.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Attacking Unix Systems via Cups, Part I by funcDropShadow on Thursday September 26, 2024 @04:38PM (#41663080)
No, persistent print queues can be implemented without cups running as super-user.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Attacking Unix Systems via Cups, Part I by gordonfish on Thursday September 26, 2024 @09:30PM (#41665401)
I'm a little confused why this is even an issue. Persistent queues have been an option since the days of Windows 9x.

Maybe it's a Gnome problem. KDE let's me see what I had previously printed if I want to see it, or reprint something.

I also know many people in pre-press who make good use of that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Attacking Unix Systems via Cups, Part I by amluto on Friday September 27, 2024 @12:05AM (#41666145)
Windows 9x printing was every bit as bad as CUPS.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Attacking Unix Systems via Cups, Part I by gordonfish on Friday September 27, 2024 @08:50AM (#41669823)
The point was about the retention of print jobs in queue, that it was a concept and option since the mid 90s.
[ Parent | on HN ]