Things can be put on par in many ways.tw296 wrote: But I have yet to see any argument that running as root is MORE secure than not doing so.
Ignorance of noobs [bless them] is not a reason.Making Puppy not run as root would shut up a huge amount of the forum questions.
Code: Select all
alias rm='echo rm is disabled, use del or deltree instead'Code: Select all
#!/bin
# file name del
# purpose to prove a point
# script tested, extra rm switches cannot be added and used
# forces confirmation for each file deletion
# can delete multiple files on one command line
# would be good to test in several ways, but purpose is to prove a point
for i in "$@"
do
if [ -f $i ] ; then
rm -i $i
fi
doneCode: Select all
#!//bin/sh
# filename deltree, deletes directories and contents
# requires two user confirmations just for fun, could make it ten
# purpose: simple script to make a point
# note: could probably be used after testing and debugging
# script not tested so don't use it as is
if [ ! $1 ] ; then
echo "The directory name to be deleted is required, no changes made"
exit
fi
a=n
if [ ! -d $1 ] ; then
echo "The directory $1 doesn't exist, exiting, no changes made"
exit
else
echo "Are you sure you want to delete $1 and all it's contents [y,n]?"
read a
fi
if [ "$a" = "y" ] ; then
echo "One last chance! Are you really sure you want to delete $1 [yes,no] ?"
read a
else
echo "Exiting, no changes made"
fi
if [ "$a" = "yes" ] ; then
echo "Too late, we gave you two chances and you blew it."
echo "$1 is history"
rm -rf $1
else
echo "Exiting, no changes made"
fi
The following is in puppy, but I got the same in ubuntu:Bruce B wrote:One last point. Root can make files read only, and even root can't delete them.
Code: Select all
# touch test
# chmod 000 test
# ls -l test
---------- 1 root root 0 2008-11-19 10:39 test
# rm test
# ls -l test
ls: cannot access test: No such file or directoryOne of the hardest things I've found in life to do is change people's beliefs.tw296 wrote:So what's this method of root making files that it can't delete? (I believe SELinux can do it, but I also believe SELinux isn't in Puppy)
Why? This is not Microsoft.tw296 wrote:Yeah that works. But I'm thinking there has to be some gotcha somewhere.
By changing extended file attributes, not normally viewable with ls -l, lsattr shows them.tw296 wrote:How is this implemented?
Formatting the partition, but those tools can be set aside once the disk is setup.tw296 wrote:Is there some circumstance in which it would be bypassed?
I don't think it is widely usedtw296 wrote:And more to the point, why isn't this used more widely? (Or is it? I don't tend to go trying to delete key system files)
Ah right.Bruce B wrote:By changing extended file attributes, not normally viewable with ls -l, lsattr shows them.tw296 wrote:How is this implemented?
It's a huge improvement in convenience for me. I tried Knoppix several years ago before I discovered Puppy. Seemed like the need for a password, which was not supplied, kept me from doing most everything I wanted to try. I found Puppy to be so much simpler to use that there is no comparison. If you need separate user accounts, fine, but keep in mind that Puppy grew up as a single user live CD. If that's the way I use it then there's no reason to run as a user with limited privileges, and plenty of reasons to run as root, as far as I'm concerned.tw296 wrote:...Does having Puppy run mainly as root make the developers' lives easier? Because that's the only thing I can think of to justify it. It's at best neutral for security, gives a negligible improvement in convenience.....
If we consider traditional distribution design, it is not harder to login as root, than it is to login as any other user. Developers can login as they please, provided the administrator allows it. Depending on the type of operation, the administator may give developers a sandbox to work with.tw296 wrote:Does having Puppy run mainly as root make the developers' lives easier?
These are not newbies. Apart from people who want multi-user for the sort of reasons Nathan wants it, these are mostly tin-foil hat people who have been indoctrinated by other distributionsQuote:
Making Puppy not run as root would shut up a huge amount of the forum questions.
Ignorance of noobs [bless them] is not a reason.
That is a most important pointFor me, the system files are not of great concern, because I have the setup cd. It's the lost user files, I'm more concerned about.
I would separate this into two issues, and these are my guesses at the answers:Does having Puppy run mainly as root make the developers' lives easier? Because that's the only thing I can think of to justify it. It's at best neutral for security, gives a negligible improvement in convenience, and makes it harder to have a multi-user system.
