On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:18:23AM -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I think they were one of the first ones to do it. I remember thinking
at the time, ah, copying Apple.
--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
