On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:36:12PM -0800, Ethan Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:55:23PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Also, as this started off as a Debian thread somewhere/somehow, do you
> > have any suggestions for auditing a box through dpkg / apt, incl
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 02:31:51PM -0700, Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > I'll have to think a bit before I say it's really bad. I think it's not
> > a *good* idea
>
> It's a horrible idea.
>
> All someone has to do then is crack your user account, and they
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I'll have to think a bit before I say it's really bad. I think it's not
> a *good* idea
It's a horrible idea.
All someone has to do then is crack your user account, and they can
trivially edit one of your dotfiles and the next time you su to root,
they have cracked
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Debian doesn't put .bash_profile in for root.
I assume you mean on a new install of debian 2.2
This is a bug in base-config (my package). See bug #66963
I hope to fix this eventually.
--
see shy jo
You should have a look a osh:
$ apt-cache show osh
Package: osh
Priority: extra
Section: shells
Installed-Size: 67
Maintainer: Preston Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Version: 1.7-6
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1.2), libncurses5, base-files (>= 2.1.6)
Suggests: nvi
Architecture: i386
Size: 45946
MD5sum: b537
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:55:23PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I'm aware of these limitations. You've got to work out acceptible
> policies and risks while providing the tools to get the job done. The
> problem I've had with direct root access is that users come on as root
> froms
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:38:11PM -0800, Ethan Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 03:47:48PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > But you've got zero control of commands available, and no logging of
> > what commands are being run as root.
>
> true, but this goes
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 03:47:48PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> But you've got zero control of commands available, and no logging of
> what commands are being run as root.
true, but this goes back to my original comment that allowing a user
account to run anything as sudo does nothing b
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:11:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 12:31:27PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> you could also accomplish this by creating mulitple uid=0 accounts
> with different passwords, at least that way if Tim gets his user
> passw
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 12:31:27PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> The advantage in a multiuser environment is that you providing (and
> controlling) root access at the user level rather than at the system
> level. Eg, Tim, Bob, Alice, and Nate have access to a system. Tim,
> Alice, and Nat
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:23:14PM -0800, Ethan Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:56:32PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> >
> > I use sudo, logged in as a regular user. It's generally considered a
> > security risk to be logged in as root, and a bit less of a risk to use
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >From: Julio Merino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It doesn't. If I create /root/.bash_profile, bash uses
> it. BUT root then gets a user path, not the special
> root path.
>
> Now, on my RH machine, I have this in .bash_profile:
>
> PATH=$HOME/bin:$PATH
>
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 04:45:27AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> actually i think bash looks for ~/.profile first and ~/.bash_profile
> last. and iirc only uses one, not both.
Call me Mr. Stupid. There's a /root/.profile there. %-X
--
Bruce
A problem shared gives the consolation that some
--
>From: Julio Merino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> You caught me! What I meant was that Bash looks for .profile in /root
>> instead of .bash_profile as with normal users. Yes, I'm well aware
>> /root is the home directory for the 'root' user. Doh!
>
>Ooops. True. Why does bash difference t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Thought occurs: maybe Debian has /bin/sh
> for Root and not /bin/bash. When called as
> sh, bash only does /etc/profile and ~/.profile
Nope, that's not it:
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
^
--
"Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundi
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 07:38:27AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:54:17PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
> >
> > in my thinking, that reason would be:
> >
> > home directory for user 'root' is /root.
> >
> > :)
>
> You caught me! What I meant was that Bash looks for
>From: Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>actually i think bash looks for ~/.profile first and ~/.bash_profile
>last. and iirc only uses one, not both.
Not according to the man page:
Login shells:
On login (subject to the -noprofile option):
if /etc/profile exis
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 07:38:27AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:54:17PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
> >
> > in my thinking, that reason would be:
> >
> > home directory for user 'root' is /root.
> >
> > :)
>
> You caught me! What I meant was that Bash looks for
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:54:17PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
>
> in my thinking, that reason would be:
>
> home directory for user 'root' is /root.
>
> :)
You caught me! What I meant was that Bash looks for .profile in /root
instead of .bash_profile as with normal users. Yes, I'm well
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 09:23:30PM -0700, Krzys Majewski wrote:
>
> Really? My PATH is something like this:
then you changed it, this is not default.
> /home/krzys/shell:.:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11:/usr/games
^
that is VERY
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:56:32PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
>
> I use sudo, logged in as a regular user. It's generally considered a
> security risk to be logged in as root, and a bit less of a risk to use
> sudo or fakeroot.
well it depends on how you setup sudo, IMO letting your non-privilege
I'll have to think a bit before I say it's really bad. I think it's not
a *good* idea, and I almost certainly wouldn't do that.
Immediate problems:
- If you've created seperate partitions for / and /home, you won't
have a root home directory when mounting just the root partition.
Th
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 09:23:30PM -0700, Krzys Majewski wrote:
> Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I use sudo, logged in as a regular user. It's generally considered a
> > security risk to be logged in as root, and a bit less of a risk to use
> > sudo or fakeroot.
>
> Aha. I only s
Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I use sudo, logged in as a regular user. It's generally considered a
> security risk to be logged in as root, and a bit less of a risk to use
> sudo or fakeroot.
Aha. I only started using sudo seriously about an hour ago.
> Funny, but 'sudo echo $PATH
I use sudo, logged in as a regular user. It's generally considered a
security risk to be logged in as root, and a bit less of a risk to use
sudo or fakeroot.
Funny, but 'sudo echo $PATH' gives the $PATH of the user, but 'sudo
whoami' says root. sudo does access the binaries in /usr/sbin, which
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:27:55PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:13:59AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > Debian doesn't put .bash_profile in for root. I want to put one in to
> > extend root's path. Putting my own .bash_profile means putting in the
> > path in full,
My /root/ is a symlink to /home/krzys. Since it's been this way for
about a hundred years, I figure it's about time to ask the question:
is it a really bad idea? -chris
Nate Bargmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:13:59AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > Debian do
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:07:46PM -0700, Krzys Majewski wrote:
> Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't log in as root very often, but never had any problems having a
> > .bash_profile in /root.
>
> OK sounds like you're telling us something here. You're on the list,
> so obviou
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:13:59AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Debian doesn't put .bash_profile in for root. I want to put one in to
> extend root's path. Putting my own .bash_profile means putting in the
> path in full, since bash doesn't do roots path if there's a
> bash_profile. Is there
Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't log in as root very often, but never had any problems having a
> .bash_profile in /root.
OK sounds like you're telling us something here. You're on the list,
so obviously you tweak your debian box from time to time. But you
don't log in as
I don't log in as root very often, but never had any problems having a
.bash_profile in /root.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:13:59AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Debian doesn't put .bash_profile in for root. I want to put one in to
> extend root's path. Putting my own .bash_profile means puttin
Debian doesn't put .bash_profile in for root. I want to put one in to
extend root's path. Putting my own .bash_profile means putting in the
path in full, since bash doesn't do roots path if there's a
bash_profile. Is there anything else that would be missed out if I were
to put in a .bash_profil
32 matches
Mail list logo
