| 1 |
On Monday 01 March 2010 03:47:12 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:07:21 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Don't read my post as literally meaning they must type the 7 characters |
| 4 |
> > "sudo su". Read it more as "use any feature of sudo you feel like to |
| 5 |
> > get a root shell, but you must use sudo. As opposed to using su alone". |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The problem with this in your situation is that you only get a log entry |
| 8 |
> when the user switches to root, not for whatever they do in that root |
| 9 |
> shell, whereas having them run each command with sudo logs every action |
| 10 |
> they take as root. Or do you have a way of auditing the commands run from |
| 11 |
> the root shell? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
We just log the fact of running sudo. The admins are trusted to not cock |
| 15 |
things up, and if they do, to not try and hide it. The philosophy is simple - |
| 16 |
if we feel we can't trust you, we would not have hired you. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Editing root's history after the fact to hide your tracks is considered a |
| 19 |
heinous crime of unimaginable proportions. Anyone caught doing it is sentenced |
| 20 |
to buy cake for the entire technical team. That's about 100 people. And when I |
| 21 |
saw cake I don't mean a teeny weeny jam tart each, I mean cake - chocolate |
| 22 |
filled croissants, black forest and my personal favourite: 4 inch high carrot |
| 23 |
cake. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
People only buy cake once around here :-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives