Mark Post wrote:
No one has said it's rational or useful (at least I haven't), but it is
necessary, for the numerous reasons everyone has been relating. Technicians
don't get to ignore executive management mandates. They can, and do, criticize
them and complain about them, but for something like this that is pretty small
potatoes in the grand scheme of things, they do their job as directed. There
have been issues in the past where I would have refused to do as directed, but
not for something this petty.
Well, in any case, now Marcy is committed to:
* removing the accounts
* validating that pam.conf disallows the reassignment of these accounts
* searching for and removing the files and directories, if any,
owned by the accounts
o alternatively, finding a safe owner for them
o Oh, and we haven't even dicussed /group/ memberships yet :)
* /altering/ the install files for /each and every upgrade/ of her
system so these accounts aren't recreated
* /validating the behavior /of any admin utilities she uses which
/may /presume the account existence (e.g., said install files)
* /deducing/ the connection between any surprising later incident
and the removal of the accounts
Please do post back, Marcy, should you discover any /more /work you've
been inadvertently committed to by this interesting management directive.
A better use of the time you'll be spending on this is /reading the
system security logs/. Mention that at your next committee meeting!
--
Jack J. Woehr # «'I know what "it" means well enough, when I find
http://www.well.com/~jax # a thing,' said the Duck: 'it's generally a frog or
http://www.softwoehr.com # a worm.'» - Lewis Carroll, _Alice in Wonderland_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
