Guy Fraser wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-12 at 23:16 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Thu December 1 2005 10:36 pm, Craig White wrote:
Best to save feeble attempts of security through obscurity for Windows.
I'm trying to get at a deeper understanding of the thinking that underlies
Linux architecture - that's really the motivation of this thread. Your
rhetoric, while it may be true, doesn't help. Why the word 'feeble'? If
everyone in the Linux world knows that the chance is good that there is a
user called 'root' on any given Linux box, and that user has nearly
unrestrained privileges, why would it be feeble to double the guessing that
must go on to get at root's privileges, by changing his username. What is the
advantage of every Linux system having this same user, 'root'? I make it a
point when securing a Windows server of always deleting the administrator
account and creating a new account with membership in administrators for
administration purposes. Why is that concept flawed, or feeble, as you put
it? It pretty much goes downhill from there with Windows, but, I see nothing
wrong with that particular feature.
Ick... the "W" word. ;-)
I do not disagree that root should be able to be changed to
whatever the system administrator wants it to be. Many
[snip]
One thing I can think of: There are e-mails sent to root
from various subsystems to notify of events.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
