At 16:09 7/21/2005, Kurt Seifried wrote:
Uhh you people realize sudo is COMPLEMENTARY to su? All my Linux and
OpenBSD systems (wait for it.....) have _both_ installed by default. Crazy
huh? Some example commands:
sudo ifconfig blah [enters own password]
sudo su - [enters own password]
sudo sendmail -q [enters own password]
su - [enters root password]
Whoa! what's #2? And what's #4? Holy cow!
For me, #2 and #4 are replaced by "sudo -u root sh" or some other shell,
totally obviating the need to have su at all. I realize some people use it
in shell scripts and so on, which I will refrain from commenting on, which
would make a sudo "su" mode a requirement to have it *replace* su, much
like the various "vi" invocation implementations.
I see absolutely no reason why sudo should not be in the base system. Not one.
I see almost as little need to make it behave as "su" when called as "su",
but I can at least see the reasoning behind it, and I also understand that
doing so would not be difficult.
Folks, this is by far the stupidest argument/discussion I have ever seen
on a security related mailing list (and I've been on BugTraq and
Full-Disclosure for a long time so that's saying something).
If "myth-busting" as I've done with Stephen is "stupid" well, go ahead at
tattoo it on my forehead. I'm from a place where education is the cure for
stupidity, not the incarnation of it.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
