Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

rmcellig · Guest

I heard from one of the forums I subscribe to that Linux Puppy boots into root user by default. Is there a way so that I can boot into Linux Puppy that is more secure like I do on my Mac and in Ubuntu? I am trying Linux Puppy from the CD and am very impressed with the speed etc!!!

Thanks!!

DPUP5520 · Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 758

Read this first http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67213

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67885

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=57914

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9385 Location: SwedenEurope

Maybe also link to the Blog text of Barry Kauler re Wary with Fido.

My thread there is not good enough in my opinion.

I had hoped when I started it that very many people would test and share but nothing seemed to came out of it.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67885

I can recommend Rexbang puppy Chromium run in Spot and Chromium browser try to be aware of security issues.

I think one have to see all this from two perspectives.

Single user and the OS seen from outside in through the Router or Modem.

1. Single user of Puppy at home. When younger or not so experienced users start up Puppy them can without wanting it do something that change for the one that set it all up so if one are aware of such then most of the cautions of running as root will be just common sense care needed.

2. Puppy OS seen from outside through a wifi modem or somebody wanting to break in. That maybe need expert knowledge to know how much more vulnereably it is compared to a Multi user OS?

Puppy supporters now and then seems to challenge critics that them should mention just one such incident when it was vulnerable and them have not done that. So either that means none did care or that it is not as vulnerable as the critics say?

Sadlyu I know too little to really know. So I wish to know too and that was why I started that thread. But seems too few cared about it and I am too computer challenged to do anything further.

DPUP5520 · Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 758

uh nooby I did already link to your thread it was the second link buddy.

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9385 Location: SwedenEurope

Yes sorry my english fails me.

That is why I wrote

My thread there is not good enough in my opinion.

It was my way to comment that maybe you linking to my thread was not a good choice. I did not promote my thread I tried to give a friendly comment that maybe it was not the best choice. Sorry.

L18L

Béèm · Posted: Tue 14 Jun 2011, 13:36 Post subject:

I don't know for Windows 7, didn't follow anymore, but before 7 mostly all people were running as administrator.

DPUP5520 · Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 758

Béèm Windows administrator is different from running as root on a unix/linux system. A more comparative analysis would be comparing running as the System User on Windows vs running Root on unix/linux.

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9385 Location: SwedenEurope

Ubuntu did not allow me what I was doing on WinXP way back in 2007 or 2008. Maybe the Admin and User thing started with Win Vista and Win7.
Or on WinXP Pro? While WinXP Home allowed one to be Admin the whole time? I never had problem with XP. I instantly got in huge trouble using Ubuntu.

WinXP could be set to User but it was not the default? One could chose which one wanted to be?

But sure my memory is not so good. Does anybody know when they forced us to be user and not Admin at Windows?

AFAIK I could do everything on Windows XP as I could on Puppy and none of that was allowed to me on Ubuntu so I changed to Puppy instead.

DPUP5520 · Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 758

nooby I'm not quite sure if you're responding to me or not but please allow me to clarify what I said above anyway. In Windows you've always had the ability to run as Administrator, even when the original admin account was hidden/locked as it is a lot with laptops/pre-configured PCs it was always easy to find and enable. Windows also has an account/user called the System User, which basically allows you to do things that even an account admin cannot do such as stopping certain processes, change certain security settings, or even mess with the kernel, and permanently delete certain files like corrupted dll's without windows automatically reloading them, in this way it's much like a Root user on Puppy/Ubuntu/whatever linux disto.

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9385 Location: SwedenEurope

Then I stand corrected. Normal average Joe Nooby users seldom had to do such though.

What I do asssert is that it was a huge difference to go from WinXP Home to Ubuntu. Total chaos one was not allowed anything as I remember. I still fail to use Ubuntu or Mint or any of the most famous.

I never failed to use WinXP

ICPUG · Joined: 24 Jul 2005 Posts: 1277 Location: UK

Starting to go off topic here but I am really interested in the 'System User' of Windows mentioned by DPUP5520.

Can you point me to somewhere where this user (and their abilities) are explained.

My experience pre Windows Vista on a home PC was that the default user could do anything, i.e. admin, just as a Puppy user can. On a Server system it might have been different although I cannot remember the term 'System User'.

Windows Vista/7 is very different. On Home Premium version the default user on first installation is termed as an administrator by Microsoft - but they do not have the priviledges they had with earlier versions of Windows. I would not call it an Administrator. There is, however, a hidden Administrator account that CAN do anything. I haven't investigated down that route yet.

DPUP5520 · Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 758

just found this article here about it https://alieneyes.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/how-to-gain-access-to-system-account-the-most-powerful-account-in-windows/

Béèm · Posted: Wed 15 Jun 2011, 19:23 Post subject:

DPUP5520 · Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 758

My apologies I wasn't trying to say that running as an admin on windows isn't dangerous just that its not the same thing as running as the root user on Linux.