On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known
> point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called
> root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge?
That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's
labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out
of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is
given full sudo access, and can choose to grant sudo to subsequently
created users. (Users with sudo can still get a root shell, but that's
not the same as logging in as root.)
I thought Ubuntu did this as well, but I haven't installed Ubuntu for
quite a while. Anyone know?
--keith
--
kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
