[NTLUG:Discuss] DistroWatch 10 Most Popular Linux Distros

[Leroy Tennison]

Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> terry wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Kenneth Loafman <kenneth at loafman.com> wrote:
>>> terry wrote:
>> Why then does the user only have to do use sudo to set password for
>> root in order be able to log in as root from then on?  Or until it is
>> changed back... $sudo passwd root & and then $sudo passwd -l root to
>> set it back and disable root login again.
>>
>> But that little trick is not necessary in the first place because one
>> only has to do
>>   sudo su
>> or
>>   sudo -i
>> and he/she obtains a root shell.
> 
> It was meant to discourage, not to disable, access to root.  Most users
> coming from Windows would not know how to do that.  It's an interesting
> example of security by obscurity.
> 
>> Some users, (especially novice users) may use a pretty weak password
>> for their user account, which DOES in fact afford several avenues for
>> admin priviledges. If they install openssh-server, how in the world
>> that can be considered as a security enhancement is going to be pretty
>> hard to explain, but I'm quite willing to listen if anyone would like
>> to give it a shot.
>>
>> That's the reason I say that it is a good thing that openssh-server is
>> not installed by default.  I think it may have opessh-client installed
>> but not openssh-server on a default Ubuntu / Kbuntu / Mint install,
>> but one only has to do sudo apt-get install openssh-server and away
>> you go - if you do not have a good firewall between yourself and an
>> untrusted network you darn sure need a good strong password for user.
>> In comparison, if it were a normal linux distro that has a good strong
>> root password and (to go a step further) if sshd is limited only to
>> user and not root  - (which in my opinion ought to be the default
>> configuration), we must admit, we'll be a lot better off.
>> I welcome any criticism or challenge to my assumptions, but at this
>> point, I can't see it any other way.
> 
> I have to agree w.r.t. ssh access.  I think root access is defaulted to
> off in Ubuntu's ssh server, but I can't remember.  I always check it
> anyway.  If the user has a weak password, and he's admin, then there is
> a security hole there anyway, but there would be one even if he did not
> have admin rights.  All it takes is to have sudo privs and you're off.
> Giving the first user admin rights is just a convenience.  Giving them
> sudo rights is the security hole.
> 
> If you don't give them any rights, they'll just sign on as root and stay
> there and we know that's bad.  So, where's a good middle ground?
> 
>> I must admit tho, that we sometimes need protection from ourselves.
>> If someone is insane enough to log in as root and  use it as if it
>> were a user account, well yes, they could initiate a GUI and get on
>> the internet with the machine and it is just a disaster waiting to
>> happen - and yes, I know, and X-MS user may very well do just that -
>> even if they are instructed not to, and so in that way, yes, even I
>> would have to admit that in that situation, a Ubuntu system is the
>> only linux distro someone in that mindset should ever get hold of --
>> Ubuntu is probably the best security someone like that could possibly
>> have, because it protects one from one's self.  But as far as
>> protection from the outside, there is no way [at this point] I could
>> consider it  a valid excuse for disabling root and giving admin
>> priviledge to the user.
>>
>> And yes, I did - I stole your argument - I had every intention of
>> letting you make it for yourself.... but just couldn't stop
>> myself..... sorry.... I get to typing and the keyboard just carries me
>> away sometimes....  :)
> 
> It's a hard choice in a distribution, and I'm sure Microsoft went
> through some of the same arguments.  It's all a balancing act, user
> convenience vs security.  Imagine a Windows user sitting down to a
> highly secured SELinux or BSD system and imagine how long it would take
> him to go back to Windows.  That, regrettably, is the decision process
> the distro makers have to manage to answer.  Security is not convenient,
> and convenience is not security.  It's all a tradeoff, and the tradeoff
> generally made is to entice users to stay, thus convenience.
> 
> Every user we can convert is one more we still have to educate, and one
> more chance to teach about security in general.  At the very least,
> think of it as one less Windows system on the internet.
> 
> ...Ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
"Imagine a Windows user sitting down to a highly secured ..." Windows 
system!  What do you mean, imagine?  Compliance + Active Directory = 
exactly this.  I have production machines at work that I can't even 
logon to.  The fact that I might need to do so to troubleshoot or 
support the environment is far too lofty a thought to be considered by 
those making the decisions (given my previous replies, three guesses, 
first two don't count: the evil bane of society - Compliance).