14 Dec
2011
14 Dec
'11
1:21 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Richard once stated:
In article <539CFBE84C931A4E8516F3BBEA36C7AA4D7E8D75 at 505MBX1.corp.vnw.com>,
Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> writes:
Basically, yes. I *loathe* sudo [1], so the less I have to use it, the
better. I made the assumption that sudo bash (or any other number of
commands that have been presented) were locked, because what's the *point*
of sudo if you can just simply do "sudo bash"? [3]
-spc (sudo this, sudo that, sudo something else ... for more than one
command, sudo is an annoyance ... )
[1] It doesn't protect the system at *all*. Or rather, to prevent shell
access via sudo [2], you need to go to insane lengths in tightening
down the system. @#$@#$ that! I'll su, thank you very much.
[2] Because root shell access can cause a great amount of damage. [3]
[3] Sudo was to allow non-root users to do root-like things, but *not*
to run a @#$@ shell, or else, why not just give the users root
access? I mean---hello! Am I missing something?
That's an awful lot of schratzing around to
accomplish what a simple
GUNRUP% sudo /bin/bash
will do for you. (I use this frequently on my Snow Leopard system.)
Is there some reason you don't do 'sudo -i'?