On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, John Aldrich <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yah, that particular argument is red herring. "sudo /path/to/shell" >> will get you a root shell, even on those distros that don't set-up a >> root account during install. > > Yes, however, you typically have to be in the "sudoers" group or else it'll > refuse to let you do that.
Right, but on distros which don't set-up a root account during install, the default user is granted sudo rights. Otherwise, there would be no way to administer the system. :-) The history of this conversation is rather confused, but the point I was attacking is that (1) any system is going to have a privileged level, which the system owner will have, and (2) luser owners who willingly install malware will willingly elevate the malware, so (3) what kind of account gets set-up during install doesn't really protect against current security threats. I think Windows can be made about as secure as Unix, it just takes a lot more time and effort to do so with Windows, in a real-world environment. "The TCO of Windows is higher", in manager-speak. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
