|
|
...
What\'s the complaint? If people want root access without writing their password every time, they are allowed to. The difference between them doing it by activating the root account, being smart and just \"sudo su\" whenever lots of root access needed commands are being performed, or using this hint with their regular account/admin account is fleeting. Someone says \"why not pee at your power supply while you\'re at it\" while another argues \"...you\'ve basically turned the system into a windows 98 machine with virtually no local security policies at all, leaving worms/trojans/viruses free to do whatever they want to your system\". Bogus. How can you claim that? The user still needs to log in, remember? What it does is give the accounts that can sudo withot password effective root status. Which of course is a serious security setback if on a server or something, but obviously not any more of a risk than having an activated root account which the user logs in as.
...
Windows security idea: The user is the "admin".
...
My Applications folder is read-only for all user accounts. Yet they can still run apps. So you might be able to chmod 744 your apps if you're really paranoid.
Thanks, I think
I don't know if I am going to do the right thing but I am goingg to use the sudo because I lost my admin password and screwed up my hostconfig file trying to make my cd mount correctly. So all I get is the UNIX interface. I am assuming if I use the sudo command it will give me access to delete or modify the hostconfig file and I should be ok. Unless someone has a better idea?? |
SearchFrom our Sponsor...Latest Mountain Lion HintsWhat's New:HintsNo new hintsComments last 2 daysLinks last 2 weeksNo recent new linksWhat's New in the Forums?
Hints by TopicNews from Macworld
From Our Sponsors |
|
Copyright © 2014 IDG Consumer & SMB (Privacy Policy) Contact Us All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Visit other IDG sites: |
|
|
|
Created this page in 0.29 seconds |
|