Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Errrrr... no' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Errrrr... no
Authored by: Anonymous on Jun 14, '02 12:16:53AM

You can't do that!

There was a massive security hole arising from being able to do that which Apple closed last year.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Errrrr... no
Authored by: nichrome on Jun 14, '02 04:45:58PM

Ok. So you want to take advantage of a feature that would lead to an even more massive security hole (ie. root)? Seeing as sudo is crippled, I suggest using TinkerTool like the other comments suggest.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Errrrr... no
Authored by: Anonymous on Jun 15, '02 10:19:24PM

Root is a security hole!? LOL. Some of the Mac OS 9 users on here are quite funny.

Root is no more of a security hole than the Commander-in-Chief is a security hole in the US military.

If someone can run applications as root when they're not supposed to be able to, *THAT* is a security hole. If legitimate users can mess up their computer when logged in as root that is incompetence not a security hole.



[ Reply to This | # ]
troll
Authored by: nichrome on Jun 16, '02 05:11:26PM

Firstly, I have been running OS X prior to its public release, so this is no OS 9 user talk. Secondly, root is not a security hole per se, but when combined with a user who likens it to Mac OS 9's single user mode (ie. the ONLY usage mode), it could be (and would be) destructive. The user in combination with root is a security and file system integrity issue. That's exactly why root is disabled by default. Also, assuming that BSD's various known security issues haven't been brought over to Darwin is just plain naive.



[ Reply to This | # ]
troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Jun 17, '02 08:19:55AM

I agree with everything you've said there. In particular, the part of your post that said 'root is not a security hole'. Cheers.



[ Reply to This | # ]