theoretical question - can root's username be changed?

akonstam at trinity.edu akonstam at trinity.edu
Fri Dec 2 22:01:10 UTC 2005


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




More information about the fedora-list mailing list