On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 12:08 +0100, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > Or not, at least until someone else wants your cpu-power, and in that > case you could find yourself left with no other option that "cutting > the cables" and reinstall.
It's not CPU power I would notice or that would cause issues. Many people drop Internet on audio production environments completely. However, indeed there are moments each day, I wouldn't notice an attack. I'm not the police, so if the NSA or a spam mafia should misuse my PC and I wouldn't notice it, bad luck, but not for me. If somebody would break my Linux, I would restore it from a backup. That's about security in general. I don't understand why sudo should be less save. For Arch Linux there are no defaults, the user has to edit all the settings. For Debian there is a default and Debian is known to be a secure distro, so it seems to be unlikely that the default sudo on Debian will make it less secure. I still do not understand what exactly is more secure by using su, than when having both su and sudo or only sudo. For servers with many users there are for sure books written how to make them most secure possible. For my PC and many other home PCs there is zero need for much security. If I would need a computer for data that should be safe, I would use a computer that never is connected to the Internet. AFAIK for the multi-user-system the biggest issue are USB ports and optical drives. As long as users can chroot using a live CD there's no need to care about su or sudo anyway. Perhaps somebody with real server experiences for real multi-user-systems could enlighten us, if sudo does cause any issue and why Debian anyway decided to make it a default. Regards, Ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1386676137.23432.15.camel@archlinux
