APLawrence.com -  Resources for Unix and Linux Systems, Bloggers and the self-employed

Security vs. Convenience

© July 2009 Anthony Lawrence

Recently I answered a forum question at another site that asked "How do I get root's environment with sudo su". I answered "sudo su -", and seconds later someone else opined "Sure, if you want to completely destroy your security".

Well, yeah. Except that he'd already done that by allowing "su" in sudoers, so adding the "-" isn't the problem. It's also pretty obvious that allowing "su" to a sudo user works on the honor system. Any person given that privilege could subvert the intention (logging of usage) easily.

It's a convenience, though. The real admin can grant temporary privilege to someone like me without actually changing the password. Assuming they trust me not to be up to no good, they have a record of my use of that privilege. It's only marginally more convenient than handing me the password or temporarily changing the password, but that margin is present, so people do this, and not just for passing consultants: full time admins often have this power but don't have "root".

Well, we all know that the road to computer hell is paved with convenience. Microsoft has shown us that and plenty of sloppy Unix programmers have kicked in their own fair share. Convenience always lessens security.

The person who carped about security mentioned Slackware, noting that at least there, sudoers would never have a default configuration that included "su". Bully for Slackware, I say, but let's not pretend that is the be all and end all of security. Truly secure systems have no all powerful root user at all and people who need such systems understand why such a user is a bad idea. It's why a safe deposit vault needs two keys - one user with unlimited power can obviously subvert a system. Truly secure systems (computer or not) are carefully planned so that audits are always in place and can never be bypassed.

But using such a system in most business environments would be insane. The root user is a point of weakness, but it is also a great convenience.

As is "sudo su -".

Got something to add? Send me email.

(OLDER)    <- More Stuff -> (NEWER)    (NEWEST)   

Printer Friendly Version

-> Security vs. Convenience

1 comment

Inexpensive and informative Apple related e-books:

Photos for Mac: A Take Control Crash Course

iOS 10: A Take Control Crash Course

Take Control of High Sierra

Take Control of Upgrading to El Capitan

Take Control of Pages

More Articles by © Anthony Lawrence

Tue Aug 4 09:31:19 2009: 6719   anonymous

I wouldn't worry about getting flamed in the forums. It could be argued that your security was completely destroyed the moment you added an X server. I digress though...Everything should be behind IPCop (grin)

I have always liked "sux"

Sux is a wrapper around the standard su command which will transfer your X credentials to the target user.

I first learned about sux from the suse folks, and have since taken it with me to debian/ubuntu (apt-get install sux)

If you've not been using it enjoy!


Printer Friendly Version

Have you tried Searching this site?

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more.

Contact us

Printer Friendly Version

We are questioning more than the philosophy behind our dependence upon limited and limiting systems. We question the power structures that have grown up around such systems. (Frank Herbert)

Linux posts

Troubleshooting posts

This post tagged:




Unix/Linux Consultants

Skills Tests

Unix/Linux Book Reviews

My Unix/Linux Troubleshooting Book

This site runs on Linode