theoretical question - can root's username be changed?

[Mike McCarty]

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!