The Ultimate Solution for running as root

For discussions about security.
Message
Author
Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#31 Post by Sylvander »

"How about everyone has their own multisession CD or DVD? When they're done using the computer, they remove their DVD and put it in a safe place"
Sounds like a "cunning plan".

User avatar
dejan555
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun 30 Nov 2008, 11:57
Location: Montenegro
Contact:

#32 Post by dejan555 »

Eh, so much options, but after all, modifying puppy scripts to allow multiuser would be much easier I think. Once changed in official woof packages all new builds would have this option.
Puppy in fact is multiuser and has spot limited user by default, but due to puppy's structure and scripts it can't run X server and most puppy scripts would need to be modified.
I never worried about security issues but user accounts for individual settings would be quite usefull instead of creating multiple installs or savefiles and rebooting.
It doesn't have to be a radical change planed for one release but scripts could be inspected and changed from time to time.
puppy.b0x.me stuff mirrored [url=https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Mb589v0iCXNnhSZWRwd3R2UWs]HERE[/url] or [url=http://archive.org/details/Puppy_Linux_puppy.b0x.me_mirror]HERE[/url]

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

#33 Post by Flash »

My word. I never watched Blackadder. I've been deprived! :lol:

postfs1

#34 Post by postfs1 »

To reedit up to date.
Last edited by postfs1 on Mon 28 Mar 2016, 00:21, edited 1 time in total.

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#35 Post by musher0 »

Flash wrote:Even if it is encrypted, a save file on a shared hard disk could be deleted. How about everyone has their own multisession CD or DVD? When they're done using the computer, they remove their DVD and put it in a safe place.
Yep! The safest and most private solution.

If perchance anything went wrong during your last session, whatever the reason, you just type

puppy pfix=1

at bootup, and puppy boots to the last "healthy" session before that one, and you're back in business!

In any case, if you're booting puppy from cd/dvd, and there is a foul-up, it would have to be your fault, because no external agent can write directly to your cd/dvd without you knowing!

TWYL (talk with you later.)
.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

forfyv
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 23 Apr 2011, 22:21

Hmm, as root, I want to have users

#36 Post by forfyv »

I would like to add user accounts to my puppy 5.2.5

I really like this distro, and I will be doing the add user at the command line.
The point has been made that apps should never tell a user they CANNOT run as root.

I would like to point that a distro should never tell a root they CANNOT run as a user!

I suppose I may eventually build a pet that adds a user/group manager to Puppy.

I understand that a lot of experienced puppy users scoff at the idea of running in a user account, but then, this is "MY machine". I kinda resent the attitude that I should NOT want to run it as a user, and that I should NOT use Puppy if I DO want to.

The attitude is rather immature, don't you agree?

Some of the experienced developers could build a user/group manager in a short time with minimal effort. To NOT do so, is rather silly.

For a new user like me to accomplish the same thing will require a large effort, and time investment.

I really have better things to do.

Sigh.

45 Mike

www.45inx.com

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#37 Post by musher0 »

Hi, forfyv.

I personally never felt a need for it, but FYI:
"pizzasgood", I believe, has put together a Puppy derivative with separate user capacity (not running as root). Maybe make a search on the forum. Might date from a year ago.

Also, as was mentioned above, you could have each of your users run his/her Puppy "Internet cafe" style, from his/her own DVD. This is perfectly safe and entirely removes the need for additional code for separating users.

Alternatively, you can save the main sfs on hard-disk and each user can have his/her own personal encrypted savefile on hard-disk or usb-disk or flash-card. In this case, the user boots from cd/dvd, but the boot-up script fetches the Puppy sfs and the individual savefile on the user-provided media. Again, very safe. The system also boots much faster that if entirely based on DVD (as in paragraph above).

Those solutions stray from mainstream Linux thinking on the subject of root, but IMHO they are more practical and more user-friendly, while maintaining very high protection and safety for the user, system, and hardware.

Incidentally, Happy Easter, if this applies to the culture you're from.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

forfyv
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 23 Apr 2011, 22:21

Yes, but . . .

#38 Post by forfyv »

Hi, forfyv.

I personally never felt a need for it, but FYI:
"pizzasgood", I believe, has put together a Puppy derivative with separate user capacity (not running as root). Maybe make a search on the forum. Might date from a year ago.
Yes, I saw the distro you mentioned, it is a 4.x version. I am using the latest release, 5.2.5. I really like this version, why should I downgrade? :-)
Also, as was mentioned above, you could have each of your users run his/her Puppy "Internet cafe" style, from his/her own DVD. This is perfectly safe and entirely removes the need for additional code for separating users.

Alternatively, you can save the main sfs on hard-disk and each user can have his/her own personal encrypted savefile on hard-disk or usb-disk or flash-card. In this case, the user boots from cd/dvd, but the boot-up script fetches the Puppy sfs and the individual savefile on the user-provided media. Again, very safe. The system also boots much faster that if entirely based on DVD (as in paragraph above).

Those solutions stray from mainstream Linux thinking on the subject of root, but IMHO they are more practical and more user-friendly, while maintaining very high protection and safety for the user, system, and hardware.

Incidentally, Happy Easter, if this applies to the culture you're from.
Happy Easter to you as well.
(I am not christian, but appreciate the sentiment!)

Yes, the alternative solutions are valid, and (ahem), they do stray somewhat from normal UNIX paradigm.

I think the point many people are missing here is that a "normal" UNIX solution would be easy to impliment, and does NOT require a new distro.

A developer, (me I guess), could create a PET that allows a root user to manage users and groups. That is all that is needed.

If a puppy user does not want to manage users, fine, don't. However for a distro to NOT have some facility, (beyond CLI), to manage users is rather awkward for a normal UNIX guy. :-)

Another point that the experienced developers here miss, is that for THEM to build such a PET would be almost trivial, if they just decided to do it.
For ME to do it requires another learning curve, and hours trying to get things to work, that an experienced guy would already know.

Silly, because it is just an attitude that is preventing it from being done.

Thanks for your comments!

45 Mike
www.45inx.com

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#39 Post by musher0 »

Hi, forfyv!

I agree that 5.2.5 is a great implementation of Puppy.

I am not a programmer, just an "extreme configuration" guy... ;-) So I can't help you much.

Maybe the simplest solution would be to send a PM to "pizzasgood", and ask him if he'd be willing to post an upgraded script or utility for Puppy 5.2.5 ?

Also, in any Puppy, there is always a "spot" user / directory. I've never used it, but maybe that would be enough to suit your purpose?

TWYL.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

User avatar
Luluc
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2011, 07:10

#40 Post by Luluc »

dawg wrote:(1) - Imagine you have a single computer in a household populated by more than 1 person, all sharing that same computer, young kids and/or other computer-nonproficient and possibly naughty users included.
- The computer has a harddrive where a bunch of each user's stuff that doesn't fit on USB flash drives (videos, music...) is stored that none of the users wants screwed with by the rest of the users.
- Running as root will allow screwing with the said files by anyone (else) in the household, whereas having multiple users added to the system and proper access permissions set for each user's files who can then login separately, will not.
If your kids are... erm... curious enough, they could boot from a live CD and still have access to those precious files. Setting up user accounts in Puppy would not prevent that. The best way to prevent that is with encrypted partitions.

dawg
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun 09 Aug 2009, 14:36
Location: still here
Contact:

#41 Post by dawg »

Luluc wrote:
dawg wrote:(1) - Imagine you have a single computer in a household populated by more than 1 person, all sharing that same computer, young kids and/or other computer-nonproficient and possibly naughty users included.
- The computer has a harddrive where a bunch of each user's stuff that doesn't fit on USB flash drives (videos, music...) is stored that none of the users wants screwed with by the rest of the users.
- Running as root will allow screwing with the said files by anyone (else) in the household, whereas having multiple users added to the system and proper access permissions set for each user's files who can then login separately, will not.
If your kids are... erm... curious enough, they could boot from a live CD and still have access to those precious files. Setting up user accounts in Puppy would not prevent that. The best way to prevent that is with encrypted partitions.
Unless one sets the BIOS to only boot from the HDD, and locks it with a password :)
I used to only like Puppy as a friend, but now I think our relationship is starting to develop into something more... :D

User avatar
WindUpToy
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed 22 Oct 2008, 03:28
Location: melbourne.au Slick525DVD

#42 Post by WindUpToy »

re: "Unless one sets the BIOS to only boot from the HDD, and locks it with a password"

I am not a security freak, altho I use IceCat as Spot, and have the mandatory minimum security, i.e: NoScript, BetterPrivacy, etc, and I don't mean to rain on your parade, but today's "curious" kiddies know that if you remove+replace the CMOS battery, when you boot up there is no password required and the CMOS sets the BIOS up automatically on modern computers, with CD-boot as the first option.

Don't underestimate your kids. :)
Last edited by WindUpToy on Sun 24 Apr 2011, 23:14, edited 1 time in total.

dawg
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun 09 Aug 2009, 14:36
Location: still here
Contact:

#43 Post by dawg »

WindUpToy wrote:re: "Unless one sets the BIOS to only boot from the HDD, and locks it with a password"

I am not a security freak, altho I use IceCat as Spot, and have the mandatory minimum security, i.e: NoScript, BetterPrivacy, etc, and I don't mean to rain on your parade, but today's "curious" kiddies know that if you remove+replace the CMOS battery, when you boot up there is no password required and the CMOS sets itself up automatically on modern computers, usually with CD-booting being the first option.

Don't underestimate your kids. :)
Well yeah, that obviously isn't gonna work for those, so a different approach may be needed (i.e. authority) :)
I used to only like Puppy as a friend, but now I think our relationship is starting to develop into something more... :D

User avatar
WindUpToy
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed 22 Oct 2008, 03:28
Location: melbourne.au Slick525DVD

#44 Post by WindUpToy »

heh heh.

Yup, its us vs them.

Just because they are smarter than us doesn't mean we let them rule.

forfyv
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 23 Apr 2011, 22:21

user manager

#45 Post by forfyv »

well, I am chagrined.
I was invited to read the "Gory Details" that Pizzasgood wrote on his experience creating a multiuser puppy distro.

That was NOT a trivial project. And I can now see why creating a PET to do a similar change would be a fruitless endeavor.

I won't say that I would be unhappy to see Puppy become a distro with the multi user facilities built in, but I am no longer advancing the opinion that it *should* be.

I am happy with Puppy on my Dell mini 9 netbook, although I will no longer be using it on my desktop.

I may just have to get rid of ubuntu netbook remix altogether. :-)

I locked the boot with a password, and have set a password for root, on the mini, and I am comfortable enough in 'NIX to know I should never go to a terminal and rm -r stuff. LOL

Thanks for the patient discussion Musher0 and pizzasgood!!
Last edited by forfyv on Mon 25 Apr 2011, 03:34, edited 1 time in total.
45 Mike
www.45inx.com

forfyv
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 23 Apr 2011, 22:21

kids

#46 Post by forfyv »

WindUpToy wrote:kiddies know that if you remove+replace the CMOS battery, when you boot up there is no password required and the CMOS sets the BIOS up automatically on modern computers, with CD-boot as the first option.
In my case I don't worry about "kids", and if I power up my system and it does NOT need a password, then I KNOW I have been hacked, cracked and compromised, I can then take steps to minimize the damage, ie, passwords, accounts, etc.

Without that boot protection, I may not know that my data has been compromised.

:-0
45 Mike
www.45inx.com

User avatar
Luluc
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2011, 07:10

#47 Post by Luluc »

WindUpToy wrote:re: "Unless one sets the BIOS to only boot from the HDD, and locks it with a password"

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but today's "curious" kiddies know that if you remove+replace the CMOS battery, when you boot up there is no password required and the CMOS sets the BIOS up automatically on modern computers
True, but instead I would worry about the fact that, assuming the BIOS password will be respected, then no one can use the computer at all except The Great Guardian of the Key, which defeats the purpose of having a multiple account system, which was being discussed.

Post Reply