On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 18:02 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 19:34 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> > You cannot cure or eliminate stupid
>
> Yes, intelligence has it's limits, but stupidity knows no bounds.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not s
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 19:34 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> You cannot cure or eliminate stupid
Yes, intelligence has it's limits, but stupidity knows no bounds.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
--
users mailing
On 10/18/10 3:09 PM, Tim wrote:
> Over the years I've tried Red Hat Linux, Fedora, CentOS, one of the
> BSDs, DeliLinux, Mandrake, Suse, Caldera, and Ubuntu. Might have forget
> one or two more. None of them did.
>
Most modern UNIX/Linux Distros default to /root or /home/root. However,
users ar
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Tom H wrote:
>> "sudo -i" = "sudo su -"
>
> Just a minor nit, they're not entirely equivalent. Not all
> environmental vars are reset. PS1 is one that I noticed. (Like I
> said, a minor nit. ;)
True, thanks.
--
users mailing list
users
Tom H wrote:
> "sudo -i" = "sudo su -"
Just a minor nit, they're not entirely equivalent. Not all
environmental vars are reset. PS1 is one that I noticed. (Like I
said, a minor nit. ;)
--
ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM, James Mckenzie
wrote:
> Tomas Hajek wrote:
>>I have to disagree with "sudo su - is stupid."
> Given all of the information in this thread and rethinking my position, I
> have to agree.
> You can block this if needed in the sudoers file.
> Thus a user with sud
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tomas Hajek wrote:
>
> I suppose if "sudo su -" asks for roots password ("Defaults targetpw" in
> sudoers for
> instance) like opensuse seems to do, I might consider that stupid but it
> probably is
> there for a reason and someone finds it useful.
targetpw requ
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Craig White wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
>> When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -. Recently, I discovered I
>> could simply type su -.
>>
>> What's the difference:
>>
>> su -
>> sudo su -
>>
>
> I can't ima
Tomas Hajek wrote:
(BTW, I know that I'm breaking threads, don't complain to me, complain to
Earthlink.)
>
>I have to disagree with "sudo su - is stupid."
>
Given all of the information in this thread and rethinking my position, I have
to agree. You can block this if needed in the sudoers file.
I have to disagree with "sudo su - is stupid."
If it serves a purpose (as it does for me and others I work with) then I don't
see it as being stupid.
Can I use "su -", sure I can but then I have to remember roots password (do I
know it yes, am I allowed to work as root, yes) but I
almost always
Hmm, I think
$ sudo -i
and your account password will give you root access on Ubuntu. On Debian
sudo is not allowed by default.
$ sudo su -
is stupid.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> > When I need root acc
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -. Recently, I discovered I
> could simply type su -.
>
> What's the difference:
>
> su -
> sudo su -
>
I can't imagine why any UNIX/Linux system would allow a 'sudo su'
command.
On 10/18/10 2:13 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:40 -0700, James Mckenzie wrote:
>> Also root's home directory should NEVER be / (root) but rather
>> something like /home/root.
> Wrong. Bad advice. The following somewhat mitigates that, but you've
> muddied the water with bad advice i
Once upon a time, Patrick O'Callaghan said:
> Back in the mists of time when men were men and dinosaurs roamed the
> Earth, the home directory for "root" was indeed "/", but of course I'm
> talking about Unix, not Linux.
Heh, I just turned off one such system last month (one more to go)!
--
Chri
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 18:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> > Also root's home directory should NEVER be / (root) but rather
> something like /home/root.
> > I've known of several folks who 'forgot' they were root or had
> either sudo'd or su -'d and
> > then issued the famous (or infamous) rm -rf * wiping o
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM, James Mckenzie
wrote:
> Also root's home directory should NEVER be / (root) but rather something like
> /home/root.
> I've known of several folks who 'forgot' they were root or had either sudo'd
>or su -'d and
> then issued the famous (or infamous) rm -rf * wip
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Tim wrote:
>
>> Most folks just install using the defaults and some systems default to
>> root's home being the base root directory and not /root or /home/root.
>
> I've never seen that, what distro does that? Geez, what a bad idea!
>
Maybe a busybox based initra
James Mckenzie:
> I did not state /root but rather the base root directory '/'.
> Anything else would be ok in my book from a security standpoint.
Sorry, I misread your prior post. I don't know why I didn't notice the
brackets where you wrote: / (root)
> Most folks just install using the defaul
Tim wrote:
>Sent: Oct 18, 2010 2:13 PM
>To: James Mckenzie , Community support for Fedora
>users
>Subject: Re: su or sudo su?
>
>On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:40 -0700, James Mckenzie wrote:
>> Also root's home directory should NEVER be / (root) but rather
>>
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:40 -0700, James Mckenzie wrote:
> Also root's home directory should NEVER be / (root) but rather
> something like /home/root.
Wrong. Bad advice. The following somewhat mitigates that, but you've
muddied the water with bad advice in the first place.
> I've known of sever
suvayu ali wrote:
>Sent: Oct 18, 2010 12:30 PM
>To: James Mckenzie , Community support for Fedora
>users
>Subject: Re: su or sudo su?
>
>Hi James and Patrick,
>
>On 18 October 2010 09:40, James Mckenzie wrote:
>> Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>>I am not sure how
On 10/18/2010 02:30 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
> Hi James and Patrick,
>
> On 18 October 2010 09:40, James Mckenzie wrote:
>> Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>> I am not sure how it is insecure, could you elaborate? At least to me
>>> giving (limited/full) root privileges to an ordinary user seems a lot
>>> more
Hi James and Patrick,
On 18 October 2010 09:40, James Mckenzie wrote:
> Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>I am not sure how it is insecure, could you elaborate? At least to me
>>giving (limited/full) root privileges to an ordinary user seems a lot
>>more risky.
>
> Which is what you are doing with the file be
wrote:
> ...
Thanks, guys. I now understand the difference.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On 10/18/10 12:01 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Monday 18 October 2010 09:15 AM, James Mckenzie wrote:
>> su - exposes the root password and is generally discouraged. sudo
>> does not but exposes which users have this privilege. Logins
>> through unsecured means should be disabled or very closely
Suvayu Ali wrote:
>
>On Monday 18 October 2010 09:15 AM, James Mckenzie wrote:
>> su - exposes the root password and is generally discouraged. sudo
>> does not but exposes which users have this privilege. Logins
>> through unsecured means should be disabled or very closely
>> controlled. Most S
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Petrus de Calguarium
wrote:
>
> When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -. Recently, I discovered I
> could simply type su -.
>
> What's the difference:
>
> su -
> sudo su -
When you use "sudo su -", you have to type in the password of the user
running sud
Todd Zullinger wrote:
>
>James Mckenzie wrote:
>> Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
>>>
>>>When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -.
>>
>> This is plain wrong. The command should be sudo .
>
>And su - is a command. ;)
But this is, in most cases, redundant.
>
>There's really nothing wrong with
On Monday 18 October 2010 09:15 AM, James Mckenzie wrote:
> su - exposes the root password and is generally discouraged. sudo
> does not but exposes which users have this privilege. Logins
> through unsecured means should be disabled or very closely
> controlled. Most SAs now disable or remove u
On 10/18/2010 12:05 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -. Recently, I discovered I
> could simply type su -.
>
> What's the difference:
>
> su -
> sudo su -
The answer depends on how you configure your sudo. The difference could
be the lack of prom
James Mckenzie wrote:
> Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
>>
>>When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -.
>
> This is plain wrong. The command should be sudo .
And su - is a command. ;)
There's really nothing wrong with that command from a technical
standpoint.
Whether someone should have acc
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
>
>When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -.
This is plain wrong. The command should be sudo .
>Recently, I discovered I >could simply type su -.
>
>What's the difference:
Passwords and what is recorded in your log files. If you use sudo, all actions
are r
When I need root access, I used to use sudo su -. Recently, I discovered I
could simply type su -.
What's the difference:
su -
sudo su -
?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
33 matches
Mail list logo
