theoretical question - can root's username be changed?

Guy Fraser guy at
Fri Dec 2 21:24:36 UTC 2005

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. ;-)

More information about the fedora-list mailing list