About root or administrative account

[Wei-Yee Chan]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Of course it doesn't.  But you said you used "root" because you came from a
> RedHat environment, and I just pointed out that in the RedHat environment I
> use, I don't have a clue if you _can_ log in as root, because RedHat
> doesn't require you to be able to login to root, either.
>   
Fedora and Redhat do not take the sudo approach - They do not disable
the root account by default.  How do U suppose administration was done
then?  U might wanna reinstall your system to verify what I've said, but
to save U some time, U should just ask the people on the newsgroups. :-)

> That, otoh, DOES matter - on a multiuser machine - 
Perhaps U didn't catch my very 1st post in this thread.  I did mention
that it depends on your situation.  In my case, it doesn't, period.

> because there's no security other than a password to su, while 
Change the name of root then, but unless your users are a bunch of
script kiddies bent on wreaking your systems, any further worrying, in
my opinion is unwarranted.

> sudo gives you granularity and
> logging.
>   
That, I'd agree.

Do read the article I sent to this list a year ago :

http://linuxboxadmin.com/articles/sudo-vs-root.php


Regards,

Wei-Yee Chan
http://chanweiyee.blogspot.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070324/4b540e62/attachment.sig>