Why I don't like running as root (in Puppy)

For discussions about security.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Bruce B

#16 Post by Bruce B »

Michael Robertson CEO of Linspire has had lots of criticism setting up the OS to run as root.

It is also a fairly major distro. Read what he has to say here:

http://info.linspire.com/askmichael/question9.htm

-----------------

More on my arguments;

Argument 1
  • What do I want to protect? For the most part I want to protect user files. If I value my user files I should have regular back-up procedures in place. Meaning, methods of protecting my important documents and files.

    I'm not particularly worried about losing system files. I have the Puppy, Suse, and Vector CD-ROMS within arms reach.
Argument 2
  • It is not necessarily easier to intrude on root than it is a user. For example, suppose there were a way of gaining control over my computer through Firefox. The exploit would be just as successful on root as it would be a user.

    The hacker, if he gained my level of permissions and access, could read, write and execute anything I can read, write and execute. My user documents, the most important documents are at his mercy.
Argument 3
  • If my computer was intruded on, I would consider it compromised. I'd want to clean house and figure out how it took place and put the preventive measures in place.

    Regardless of if the computer was compromised with me a user or root, it is still a compromised system.
Argument 4
  • It is not happening. Personal computers running Linux and not running services such as proxies, ftp, http are simply not being exploited to any significant degree, although the services they run are targets.

    My computer gets hit often several times an hour. Fully 90% of the hits are on ports 1026 and 1027. Many of them are from China and Japan. There is a big exploit there on XP - the DCOM services for people who have not applied the patches.

    DCOM doesn't exist in Linux and it is not bound to these ports. There is nobody home to answer the door for the hackers.

    Reference: http://grc.com/port_1026.htm

    Other ports are 21, 80, 8080, 22 and a range of ports for known Windows trojans. I've never seen a scanner scan 65535 ports. They go for known ports with exploits and those are almost without exception, known Windows trojans, robots, and other Windows exploits. Of course non OS specific common service ports.

    We are not running this software, and that is the primary reason there is not much to concern ourselves with.

    Sort of like having a cabin in the wilderness and no one ever has come around to bother you.

    Also, gaining access to an open port doesn't mean a successful hack. Port 8 the ping port is software written to respond to ping requests. It is not going to edit a graphic file, hand over root's password or allow entry to the system.
Changind subject to something fun.
  • I used to run an unprotected HTTP server for the public. It was specially written to always say yes to the hackers and give them an error code of 200 and hand them a clear 1x1 Gif file. Plus log all their activities.

    The hacker script would sends requists like ../../cmd.exe and all kinds and combinations of CGI scripts exploits. My HTTP server would always say OK and immediately hand them the GIF image. That is all it was programmed to do, say yes to everything and give it an invisible GIF image.

    Not to mention, keep precise and detailed logs of everything the hacker would do. This way I could tell with precision what was being done. The hacker getting good feedback on his end would go the whole nine yards with his scripts and techniques.

    The point being that even have the software bound to the port and servicing the hacking industry, it was safe because it wasn't actually going to let someone in. It wasn't programmed that way.
Everything is good.

User avatar
edoc
Posts: 4729
Joined: Sun 07 Aug 2005, 20:16
Location: Southeast Georgia, USA
Contact:

#17 Post by edoc »

Bruce B wrote: If you wish to maintain the position about other people being affected or bad Netizenship, I think it fair to ask you to back up this moral stance with some specifics.
  • 1) who got affected remotely because someone else was running their personal computer as root, where they would not have been affected otherwise?

    *The lists run in the thousands, including major business and government sites. Where have you been? It has been all over the news for years.

    2) when and where did it happen?

    *All over the world.

    3) what was the nature of the adverse affect?

    *Lost data, stolen private data, lost business, wasted taxes due to harm to government productivity (already minimal), compromised security, compromised safety.

    4) if possible, how was it that running as root caused the problem?

    *Allowed hackers to use the host computers to attack systems and find their vulnerabilities, or allowed them to overwhelm and shut down systems.

    *I apologize for sounding harsh but I canot imagine any computer literate person being unaware of the massive harm that has been occuring across the world because of unsecured personal and business computers.

    *I just ran everything on ShieldsUp on my Suse laptop. 100% secure.

    *Carefully climbing down off my soapbox ... doc

Rich
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 19:00
Location: Middlesbrough - UK

#18 Post by Rich »

edoc wrote:
Bruce B wrote: ............... wasted taxes due to harm to government productivity
That one doesn't apply over here in England. Our Government has little or no beneficial productivity anyway and don't need an excuse to waste our taxes.

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#19 Post by Flash »

edoc, you make a lot of assertions but don't give any concrete examples. I would really appreciate it if someone could cite an instance where browsing the internet while running as root is the reason a computer was compromised, or caused more damage when it was compromised than if it had been running as a user with less privileges than root. Until I see some real data, I'm going to side with Bruce B.

Besides, Puppy is a special case. If I don't install Puppy to the hard drive, but instead run from the CD, and I'm the only user, then I think the argument about the dangers of running as root needs to be revisited. Mr. Knopper made it so hard to run as root in Knoppix that I found Knoppix to be all but useless. When I heard about Puppy (in the Knoppix forum) I tried it out and never went back to Knoppix.

Running as root certainly isn't the only reason I like Puppy better than Knoppix, but it definitely is a big one. It's hard enough for me to get things to work; why make it more complicated unless there is some provable benefit?

User avatar
edoc
Posts: 4729
Joined: Sun 07 Aug 2005, 20:16
Location: Southeast Georgia, USA
Contact:

#20 Post by edoc »

Flash wrote:It's hard enough for me to get things to work; why make it more complicated unless there is some provable benefit?
On this point we agree for sure! ;-) :-) :-\

doc

loulou35

Puppy Linux for my family

#21 Post by loulou35 »

Puppy is just great: little, fast, usefull, especially when installed on hard disk of old hardware configuration... :D

For my very young children, I keep skeptical about letting them as root removing any configuration file. :oops:

Please, insert multi user ability including root, as DSL proposes: you'll get perfect. :D

User avatar
klhrevolutionist
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 10:09

the answer

#22 Post by klhrevolutionist »

It seems people don't want to run as root. Most of these people that
want a user have children. And then again, some people read about it,
and assume they also, need a user. Maybe, it might be possible to add a user
in the near future. My understanding of linux is not the best, but I do
wonder about the lot of us that use a hard drive. A little ssh & someone
could do about anything. That is unless you take precaution to prevent
these actions.
So, personally I don't mind being root as I like full control of my computer.
Any other distro, I always use root.
Heaven is on the way, until then let's get the truth out!

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

Re: the answer

#23 Post by Flash »

klhrevolutionist wrote:...It seems people don't want to run as root. Most of these people that want a user have children. And then again, some people read about it, and assume they also, need a user... I do wonder about the lot of us that use a hard drive. A little ssh & someone could do about anything. ...
The genius of Puppy is that it can run entirely from CD or DVD. If you replace your hard drive with a DVD burner, running from root in multisession Puppy is nothing to worry about. Each user can have his own (removable) disk containing his personal settings and everything he is working on.

User avatar
rarsa
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 20:30
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

#24 Post by rarsa »

flash wrote:Each user can have his own (removable) disk containing his personal settings and everything he is working on.
What if the computer owner is a woman, or has a wife or daughter? :P
klhrevolutionist wrote:A little ssh & someone could do about anything. ...
Logging in as a limited user WON'T protect you from this. When someone connects through ssh, a new session is created with its own loggin. If the atacker can guess, findout or crack your root password, the atacker will get controll of your computer, whether you are running as root or not. The moral of this story: If you enable SSH, Choose a secure password that you can remember but it's difficult to crack.

Note to new puppys: klhrev example is highly hypotetical. SSH server does not come with puppy as a default, it has to be downloaded, installed, configured and enabled for it to be a risk.
Last edited by rarsa on Wed 05 Oct 2005, 17:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#25 Post by Flash »

She'll just have to ask the man of the house for help. :twisted:

User avatar
n8siv
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 13:43
Location: ohio USA

#26 Post by n8siv »

I like runing as root it,s a bumer to start to do some thig is other distros
when you get the msg you need to be root to do that.
I run a firewall called ipcop on a old toshiba laptop to keep out the hakers.
This firewall work,s great on dialup where i started .
the fix is out thier :lol:

User avatar
seldomseen
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon 30 May 2005, 16:05
Location: Charleston, SC
Contact:

#27 Post by seldomseen »

Since starting to use Linux I've gotten used to the root/user system, and it's no great effort to bring up a terminal, type in su and my password, and do root things that way. Actually I've come to appreciate this. In the few seconds it takes to open a root terminal, I'm reminded to put my game face on and get my stuff together 'cause I can now do some real damage if I type the wrong thing. The computer is asking me, "Are you sure? Better be, 'cause you're in for a hell of a ride." Just an extra level of protection.

When running Puppy off the CD, it doesn't matter a whole lot in my case. I'm the only one who uses this computer (unless my dog is surfing for canine porn sites while I'm at work), and it is kinda hard to screw up system files when they're on the CD-ROM anyway.

User avatar
gliezl
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 06 Aug 2005, 22:30
Location: Manila

#28 Post by gliezl »

Flash wrote:She'll just have to ask the man of the house for help. :twisted:
what about if she is single, separated or divorced? :)

can sudo command be included in future versions of puppy?
[color=blue][i]"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it."
~Margaret Fuller[/i][/color]

mclien
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue 19 Jul 2005, 19:02
Location: germany

#29 Post by mclien »

OK here comes another qoute for multiuser (maybe tiny loggin?)

As guessed before its about networking in environment like family, coworkers etc.

Running linux for a while leads often to something like haing a file-/ printer- / whatever-server. mine should do the following (in the 'end' state):
-file server holding /home /mp3 and doing backup.
-beeing the misic server holding all the mp3s to provide to any computer in the house
-and musicbox as home stereo replacement
-VDR (digtal video disc recorder)
-family calendar/ planer
-sharing the dsl internet connection

so if I want everyone let use any computer in the house with access to her/ his data i NEED nfs-filesharing and multiusers on any comp in the house.

what makes puppy that interessting is its unbelievable speed, even on old machines AND its opportunity to be carried arround, too.

So I'm not very used to generate users/groups from commandline, here is my question:
Is it really that difficult (at least with HD install) to generate users?
What about this:
-generating tiny loggin as dotpup
-a skript (yes commandline, its the linux admin anyway useing this) that generates:
--new lines in /etc/passwd (/etc/shadow)
--home dirctories
--adding the new users to the nesessary groups/ generating the nesessay apps

is this to simple? What else did I forgot to mention...

jester

#30 Post by jester »

Is there any news on wether a non root user/login possibility will be built in or not?!

I have been lokking at puppy for a long time to instal on an few old boxes, but I also need the option of normal user access so others can't mess up these computers.


Kind regards,
jester.

User avatar
MU
Posts: 13649
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 16:52
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Contact:

#31 Post by MU »

You can start Puppy with several pup00x

You could modify your grub-menu like this:

Code: Select all

title Puppy for Walter
        rootnoverify (hd0,0)
        kernel /puppylinux1.0.6/vmlinuz root=/dev/ram0 PFILE=pup001-PasSwOrD1
        initrd /puppylinux1.0.6/image.gz

title Puppy for ME
        rootnoverify (hd0,0)
        kernel /puppylinux1.0.6/vmlinuz root=/dev/ram0 PFILE=pup002-PasSwOrD2
        initrd /puppylinux1.0.6/image.gz

Mark

GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#32 Post by GuestToo »

you can run X as an unprivileged user (for example, spot) fairly easily ... (setuid X and tinylogin, setup config files in /root/spot, chmod or chown or delete a file or 2 in /tmp, su spot, type xwin)

rxvt/aterm will not run as spot ... i tried a few things like xhost and setuid root, but didn't get it to work ... i have not tried changing the configuration in inittab yet (i would need to remaster Puppy or install Puppy to a hard drive, option 2) ... rxvt will run as root, so terminals are still available

many or most dotpup and pupget packages assume Puppy runs as root and assumes $HOME is /root ... they assume the configuration files, like menus, are in /root and that you have write permissions to /root ... MUT and pmount assume you have supervisor powers ... and things like "my-documents is owned by root" need to be fixed

it can be done, but it will break a lot of 3rd party packages ... running as root is less safe, but it is simpler

User avatar
Alucard_the_dex
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed 05 Oct 2005, 01:53

#33 Post by Alucard_the_dex »

I keep getting Told to stop running as a root in IRC @.@
~Puppy Linux~ Where mans best friend becomes PCs best friend

User avatar
aahhaaa
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri 07 Oct 2005, 03:21
Location: Lower Michigan, North America

#34 Post by aahhaaa »

I don't see a lot of consensus here on actual facts... :?

its one thing to say 'can't happen' when you are really competent with Linux and have the knowledge to see a prob if it develops, but the advice is being given to everybody...

almost everything I've read about Linux in general says 'DON"T RUN AS ROOT unless you have to, and offline.' I'd like something pretty solid to contradict that, and expect most first-lookers would too. I understand about the CD providing some immunity to screwups & malware, but...

...manyof the people here are at least partially HD installed as dual boot with a WinOS. While Win is dormant, the HD & CPU are not. I'm real fuzzy on what might get thru an open port in this situation, but I've discovered that Symantec 'doesn't support' dual boot machines of any kind. With corporate pirates getting into rootkits, etc* I'd guess there could be a problem.

*I know this isn't the same as running in root. But, doesn't 'not running in root' confer a sort of blanket protection in writing to the HD? Then the write file attribute is checked first for everything right?

sorry for that confusing sentence, best I can put it... sorry if I don't know something basic here. :roll:

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#35 Post by Flash »

Some people are said to have installed the Sony rootkit in their computers at work where I presume they were not running as root. If that's the case, maybe the whole root argument is moot.

Post Reply