| 1 |
Petre Rodan wrote: |
| 2 |
> - you're opening up a pandora's box here because I'm sure one can be very imaginative of what can be run thru sudo and not be allowed by the policy |
| 3 |
So you are saying that with "su" the sysadmin cannot run all possible |
| 4 |
commands? For example - I have to edit /etc/fstab. So I have two choices: |
| 5 |
$ newrole -r sysadm |
| 6 |
$ su - |
| 7 |
# vi /etc/fstab |
| 8 |
(or "$ su - -c 'vi /etc/fstab'") |
| 9 |
or |
| 10 |
$ newrole -r sysadm // or something else |
| 11 |
$ sudo vi /etc/fstab |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And the first choice is better from security point of view? For me it looks |
| 14 |
like that policies for "su" and "sudo" will be similar in such examples. Am I |
| 15 |
wrong? Is there another /better/ way for running one command as root? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> - a misconfigured or broken sudo greatly weakens the security of a system by possibly allowing privilege escalation, so why even install it? |
| 19 |
One simple reason is that it is an easy way to log root commands (when of |
| 20 |
course the sysadmin wants it to be logged, e.g. he don't type "sudo bash" or |
| 21 |
something). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Krzysztof Kozłowski |
| 28 |
http://www.kozik.net.pl |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives