But naturally it happens all the time! That's what i love about computer security when ever you try to tell someone to do something normal and smart they do the polar opposite =)
On 2/4/07, Q-Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:40:47 +0530, Raj Mathur said: > > I believe we have had this discussion before, but I'll iterate my > > beliefs in favour of allowing direct root access again: > > > - Key-based root logins are quite secure. I don't see any reason why > > key-based root login would be any less secure than permitting a user > > login followed by an sudo. > > It's not the security of the login itself - it's the ability to create > an audit trail of which userid performed an action. If you can find > some other way to... > Yes ability to audit is important, and you can still retain accountably with direct root logons depending upon configuration but there are two major security problems with direct root logons: - Remote brute forcing. Personally I'd rather someone crack 2 accounts rather than just one, but maybe that's just me ;-) - Security should be implemented on a least privilege basis. Logging on as root as opposed to a user, isn't always required and just increases your window of opportunity eg. SSH channel attacks, key loggers, brute forcing, etc.Quite often sudo should suffice for regular tasks. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
-- http://www.goldwatches.com http://www.wazoozle.com
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/