On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:36:18PM -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. > This can be dealt with with an alias. -- ======================================================================= optimist, n: A bagpiper with a beeper. ------------------------------------------- Aaron Konstam Computer Science Trinity University telephone: (210)-999-7484
