UnConfusing The Issue Of Disabling Root On Linux or Unix

Don't you think you are getting just a little precious here? You ignore 40 years of secure usage because Ubuntu hasn't been around for 40 years. You claim I've provided no evidence that because I point to history, then you claim that the limited time Ubuntu has been around with no exploits is historical evidence that supports your assertion.

Point of Fact. I have never claimed Ubuntu is like Windows. I have consistently stated that Ubuntu is less secure than a traditional Linux set up. I have further stated that I believe the single user/root password (using sudo) is a marketing ploy aimed at Windows users. No where have I claimed Ubuntu is as insecure as windows.

Ubuntu hasn't been around long enough for us to know just how bad this weakness is. What we can be sure of is that separate password for super user works and works well. what we can be equally sure of is that Ubuntu is somewhat less secure than a traditional Linux system, because of the usage of a tool - sudo - that was designed to allow the system administrator to assign specific but very limited tasks, that require root access, to non administrator users, rather than giving them the root password, as a global tool for system administration. Just how less secure we can't know yet, but given that the entire system is protected by only the non root user's password, and that access to that will give the possessor the key to the kingdom, it is less secure, even if only because typically no one logs in with the root password, on a properly set up Linux system.

Quoting: Actually the discussion did not target *buntu at the start. A few people who decided to blindly defend what they perceived as a slight against *buntu just kept dragging the discussion back to it.

The label *buntu is being used to refer to the setup being discussed. And no, there was no "blind" defense from my side other than in your preconceived imagination. Its just that you need to pay more attention to what the other side is saying.

Quoting: So far you have yet to disprove in a sudo active system why a breached user account is not also a root level breach.

As has already been mentioned there are two possibilities being discussed and mixed with one another causing the confusion.

Quoting: There are two possibilities being discussed here. One is that user account is compromised without password being actually compromised -- this is the "zero" password case mentioned above. Other is that user password is compromised -- this is the 1 password case (vs 2 passwords as claimed for traditional setups). Point is that in both cases exactly one password is actually required to be known for this kind of root level exploit.

It is not clear which breach you refer to. I assumed it to be the second one. In either case the attacker needs exactly one password (user password on sudo'ed systems vs root password). So, no a breached user account does not necessarily mean a root level breach unless the user password is compromised. If user password breach is being considered then as already pointed out umpteen number of times, an attacker will directly go for the root password on traditional setups if root level access be desired. So your starting point of user password breach on both systems is a flawed one.

Guys,

Thanks for your comments - I always thought I had this board set up to auto-notify me if a thread was started, but I'm realizing that's not the case.

BTW, I don't allow comments on my blog, but do include my email address (eggi@comcast.net) in every script (Perhaps I should put it near the top of the page in a static element box to make it easier for folks to get in touch with me). I'm definitely interested in all feedback, as it can only make the site better. Unfortunately, even if I moderate comments, Google crawls me every day and has sent me warning about adult posts (waiting in moderation no less) on my site and I don't want them to shut me down. They are big dogs and may just be blowing steam, but I don't want to push it.

As for my own personal politics, I've been an admin for almost 13 years and was taught the trade in a company where they used rsh with a .rhosts pass for root (The complete opposite of security, in many ways other than that specific example), but it was a great place to learn, and then to learn again why I was doing everything incorrectly :P

I believe in either a very strongly encrypted (and/or convoluted) root password and no direct access. In my post, I was attempting to "clear the air" on some other posts I'd read about actually "removing the root user" entirely as a security measure (which would be a tricky proposition and probably not for most folks). I like sudo, but personally stick with using straight-up "su" with 4750 perms and having all the admin's who require root access to be in the only group that has access to even run su, and then also know the root password. I've toyed with s/key systems, for root password, as well, but found them to be hazardous (At least to my sleep ;), but (perhaps due to my writing style, which is a bit lengthy and effusive) I gave the wrong impression that I fully support the NoPassword sudo-only access to root method. I am still strongly in the "root should have a password and only a few people should know and only those people should be able to use su at all, if possible" camp.

Thanks, again, for all the feedback. You can email me direct anytime. I usually can't gaurantee a response more than once in a 24 hour period, but I can always be reached there. I'll be checking back here more often from now on. Nice to know someone's actually reading my blog ;)

Best wishes,

Mike