On Fri, 2005-02-12 at 13:36 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > 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. > That's what /etc/aliases is for. ;-)
