14 Dec
2011
14 Dec
'11
1:40 p.m.
On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Richard once stated:
The point is so you don't do something stupid accidentally, like "chmod -R 666
/". It's just a safety; it's not meant to lock people out of having root
shells, it's just to prevent them from doing it routinely. It's been useful to me
in that respect, as it has prevented me from doing stupid things accidentally because I
wasn't in a root shell.
It also has the alternate function of granting limited admin powers to non-superusers, but
I would argue that anything other than a whitelist of commands is asking for trouble in
that regard (and it's probably just not a great idea in general, given how many
programs have doors out the side, like vi).
- Dave
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] 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'?