Another problem with Sudo - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Another problem with Sudo - Ubuntu ; On 2008-05-24, jebblue wrote: > What plugin is this that requires root privileges? > If I had to guess, it would likely be flash or java, since both of these, under Ubuntu, install a package rather than simply the plugin. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 77

Thread: Another problem with Sudo

  1. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    On 2008-05-24, jebblue wrote:

    > What plugin is this that requires root privileges?
    >


    If I had to guess, it would likely be flash or java, since both of
    these, under Ubuntu, install a package rather than simply the plugin.


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  2. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Jim Cochrane wrote:
    > On 2008-05-24, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-05-24, Bill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Here's one more reason why I do not like the principle of supplying
    >>>>> ...
    >>>>>
    >>> The problem is the amount of time and hassle to do it. That's how
    >>> ...
    >>> As opposed to other unix solution, which is to supply a root password
    >>> to get root credentials.
    >>>

    >> What you fail to consider is how much time and hassle your continuous
    >> stream of questions are to the rest of us.
    >>
    >> Someone said once that there is no "stupid question" but they left it up
    >> to you to decide if asking the question is stupid.
    >>
    >> Go back to Windows, us it, be happy, and leave the rest of us in peace
    >> so we can help those who need our assistance.
    >>

    >
    > That's not a very helpful response.



    Perhaps it is because it wasn't addressed to you?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  3. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Jim Cochrane wrote:
    > On 2008-05-24, johnny bobby bee wrote:
    >
    >> John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>> What you fail to consider is how much time and hassle your continuous
    >>> stream of questions are to the rest of us.
    >>>
    >>> Someone said once that there is no "stupid question" but they left it up
    >>> to you to decide if asking the question is stupid.
    >>>
    >>> Go back to Windows, us it, be happy, and leave the rest of us in peace
    >>> so we can help those who need our assistance.
    >>>

    >> Oh God, thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU. Finally, I'm not the first to
    >> say it.
    >>
    >> What a relief.
    >>

    >
    > Do you people not know how to add a 'person' to your killfile with your
    > newsreader (or whatever terminology your newsreader uses for this)?
    > With slrn, all you do is type 'k' and 'answer' the couple questions that
    > follow; then you'll never see posts from this person again, as long as
    > he stays with the same user name on usenet.
    >
    > Then you won't need to post to complain about how someone posts too
    > much. (Since if you do that too much, people might start 'killfiling'
    > you.)



    Jim,

    Perhaps after you've been around here for awhile, you might understand
    the reasoning for the method that others use to post messages.

    Here is a good example:

    If you don't like the way Johnny Bobby Bee or I reply to others, then
    you are certainly free to take your own advice and killfile us.

    That would be the most-logical solution to your problem of complaining
    and understanding free speech, and keeping your nose out of other
    people's business.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  4. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 25 May 2008 22:08:16 +0000, Jim Cochrane wrote:
    >
    >
    >> On 2008-05-25, ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 23:27:09 +0000, johnny bobby bee wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> with this, I think that I can safely make my son member of sudoers,
    >>>>> since he won't know the root password anyway.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Yes, please. Please do that. Make your son a member of sudoers. He'll
    >>>> delete system files, or bork your system beyond repair, then you'll
    >>>> have to go back to Windows and we'll *all* be happy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Save us the agony, just give him a sledgehammer and have him go at it
    >>>> with that.
    >>>>
    >>>> cheers.
    >>>>
    >>> If you'd bother to read what he did, you'd see that it's quite safe. He
    >>>

    >> Well, he's not safe if he has the root password written down somewhere
    >> and his son finds it. :-)
    >>

    >
    > Rule number ONE of computer security: NEVER write down your password.



    Whose rule is that? If it is your rule, fine, but if you heard it from
    some authority, then who?

    You are replying to a post by Jim Cochrane, who simply dreamed up some
    "if" situation that was not even mentioned by the OP.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  5. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    >> Rule number ONE of computer security: NEVER write down your password.

    >
    > Rule number two: make your clients put numbers and punctuation
    > in their passwords. This guarantees they will write them down.



    Perhaps young whippersnappers can remember a bunch of hash, but old
    people often forget to bring up their fly. ;-)

    If you have dozens of computers, multiple user accounts, e-mail
    accounts, bank accounts, etc., there's no way you can remember all of
    the required passwords. No way.

    Writing a password on the wall is fine in most cases. You are, after
    all, securing your system from evil crackers who roam the Internet. They
    can't see your wall (unless you provide a Webcam).

    If a burglar breaks in, he might steal your computer, but I doubt he
    will sit down and try out the passwords. Nor will he remove a slab of
    Sheetrock to take along.

    When you return home you should know your PC is missing, so a password
    is moot anyway. It's likely they can't crack it, and can't use Linux in
    the first place. So your hard drive is going to wind up formatted with
    NTFS and Windows, then sold to the highest bidder. Long before that
    happens you will have notified your bank, credit card companies, etc. Right?

    If someone in your home, like your kid, tries to "steal" from you, by
    using your password, then *you* have a behavioral modification problem,
    and need to address that. Carry a big stick and speak loudly. You let
    'em get away with tasting a "win," and no hidden or memorized password
    will stop them in the future.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  6. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Ignoramus22089 wrote:
    > On 2008-05-25, Jim Cochrane wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-05-25, ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 23:27:09 +0000, johnny bobby bee wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> with this, I think that I can safely make my son member of sudoers,
    >>>>> since he won't know the root password anyway.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Yes, please. Please do that. Make your son a member of sudoers. He'll
    >>>> delete system files, or bork your system beyond repair, then you'll have
    >>>> to go back to Windows and we'll *all* be happy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Save us the agony, just give him a sledgehammer and have him go at it
    >>>> with that.
    >>>>
    >>>> cheers.
    >>>>
    >>> If you'd bother to read what he did, you'd see that it's quite safe. He
    >>>

    >> Well, he's not safe if he has the root password written down somewhere
    >> and his son finds it. :-)
    >>

    >
    > I am very paranoid about my root password.



    Some believe paranoia is a sickness. A disability to evaluate your
    surroundings and act properly.

    One solution is to listen and heed what others have said in this
    newsgroup, instead of arguing with them and causing yourself all of the
    grief.

    Don't assign Root a password and use sudo.

    Simple solution to end password paranoia.

    Of course, YMMV. ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  7. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >> The problem is the amount of time and hassle to do it. That's how
    >> things are done in Windows XP (and that's why Windows users have to be
    >> administrators to do anything)
    >> As opposed to other unix solution, which is to supply a root password
    >> to get root credentials.

    >
    > Probably wouldn't be hard to modify whatever to do like
    > Mac OS X: If you are a sudoer, a popup has your user name
    > in one box and asks you for its password.
    >
    > If you are not a sudoer, both boxes are empty and it asks you
    > for an administrator's name and password.



    Hmmmm. I never noticed that (I seldom use the iMac).

    I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.

    Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    breaks in.

    What do those Apple people smoke in their private little world?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  8. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Trevor Best wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:39:47 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Jim Cochrane wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-05-24, johnny bobby bee wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> John F. Morse wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> What you fail to consider is how much time and hassle your continuous
    >>>>> stream of questions are to the rest of us.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Someone said once that there is no "stupid question" but they left it up
    >>>>> to you to decide if asking the question is stupid.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Go back to Windows, us it, be happy, and leave the rest of us in peace
    >>>>> so we can help those who need our assistance.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Oh God, thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU. Finally, I'm not the first to
    >>>> say it.
    >>>>
    >>>> What a relief.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Do you people not know how to add a 'person' to your killfile with your
    >>> newsreader (or whatever terminology your newsreader uses for this)?
    >>> With slrn, all you do is type 'k' and 'answer' the couple questions that
    >>> follow; then you'll never see posts from this person again, as long as
    >>> he stays with the same user name on usenet.
    >>>
    >>> Then you won't need to post to complain about how someone posts too
    >>> much. (Since if you do that too much, people might start 'killfiling'
    >>> you.)
    >>>

    >> Jim,
    >>
    >> Perhaps after you've been around here for awhile, you might understand
    >> the reasoning for the method that others use to post messages.
    >>
    >> Here is a good example:
    >>
    >> If you don't like the way Johnny Bobby Bee or I reply to others, then
    >> you are certainly free to take your own advice and killfile us.
    >>
    >> That would be the most-logical solution to your problem of complaining
    >> and understanding free speech, and keeping your nose out of other
    >> people's business.
    >>

    >
    > John,
    >
    > If you don't like Jim's... ( this could go on forever :-P)



    Oh I didn't say I didn't like Jim's reply.

    I just thought he deserved an explanation, and maybe some
    tongue-in-cheek advice (in this case, the black pot vs. the black kettle).

    I don't intend to killfile someone who isn't obnoxious, because they
    obviously try to make sound decisions in their judgment. I probably can
    learn something from them. It's reading between the lines that takes so
    much time.

    If you don't fully understand my use of "obnoxious," let me say Dan C.,
    Frank, etc. ;-)

    I don't understand Dan C.'s problem here at all. If you read his stuff
    in a.o.l.slackware, he appears to be an outstanding person, getting and
    giving help.

    Could it be a.o.l.u just has a hex on it? ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  9. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:06:47 GMT
    "John F. Morse" wrote:

    > > Probably wouldn't be hard to modify whatever to do like
    > > Mac OS X: If you are a sudoer, a popup has your user name
    > > in one box and asks you for its password.
    > >
    > > If you are not a sudoer, both boxes are empty and it asks you
    > > for an administrator's name and password.

    >
    >
    > Hmmmm. I never noticed that (I seldom use the iMac).
    >
    > I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.
    >
    > Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    > figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    > breaks in.


    We're talking about a GUI message box or popup, so the cracker would
    have to sitt in front of the machine, or be connected via VNC or an
    equivalent over the network. Either way, finding out the current
    username would be as easy as typing "whoami" in a terminal, so I don't
    think this is an issue.

    This approach sounds good to me. Better than the "gksu" way.


    --
    Was ist ist, was nicht ist ist moeglich

  10. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Johannes Kroll wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:06:47 GMT
    > "John F. Morse" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> Probably wouldn't be hard to modify whatever to do like
    >>> Mac OS X: If you are a sudoer, a popup has your user name
    >>> in one box and asks you for its password.
    >>>
    >>> If you are not a sudoer, both boxes are empty and it asks you
    >>> for an administrator's name and password.
    >>>

    >> Hmmmm. I never noticed that (I seldom use the iMac).
    >>
    >> I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.
    >>
    >> Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    >> figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    >> breaks in.
    >>

    >
    > We're talking about a GUI message box or popup, so the cracker would
    > have to sitt in front of the machine, or be connected via VNC or an
    > equivalent over the network. Either way, finding out the current
    > username would be as easy as typing "whoami" in a terminal, so I don't
    > think this is an issue.
    >
    > This approach sounds good to me. Better than the "gksu" way.



    Why would you permit a cracker to sit at your machine?!

    If they connected over the network, they would need an account and
    password. Well, in most cases, but I see there are some really dense
    people in this group that probably run their computers with no password,
    or something really stupid like "qwerty" for a password. In those cases
    any logical discussion is null and void.

    If someone managed to gain access, then whoami is quite redundant isn't it?

    I think "sudo" is better than the "gksu" method. Four characters is all.

    One of the security problems with some Linux distros are the ones that
    put the username on the screen. Maybe clicking a penguin, etc. This can
    be turned off to force a user to supply the name for better security.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  11. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:19:30 GMT
    "John F. Morse" wrote:

    > Johannes Kroll wrote:
    > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:06:47 GMT
    > > "John F. Morse" wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>> Probably wouldn't be hard to modify whatever to do like
    > >>> Mac OS X: If you are a sudoer, a popup has your user name
    > >>> in one box and asks you for its password.
    > >>>
    > >>> If you are not a sudoer, both boxes are empty and it asks you
    > >>> for an administrator's name and password.
    > >>>
    > >> Hmmmm. I never noticed that (I seldom use the iMac).
    > >>
    > >> I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.
    > >>
    > >> Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    > >> figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    > >> breaks in.
    > >>

    > >
    > > We're talking about a GUI message box or popup, so the cracker would
    > > have to sitt in front of the machine, or be connected via VNC or an
    > > equivalent over the network. Either way, finding out the current
    > > username would be as easy as typing "whoami" in a terminal, so I don't
    > > think this is an issue.
    > >
    > > This approach sounds good to me. Better than the "gksu" way.

    >
    >
    > Why would you permit a cracker to sit at your machine?!


    Exactly my point: You wouldn't.


    > If someone managed to gain access, then whoami is quite redundant isn't it?
    >
    > I think "sudo" is better than the "gksu" method. Four characters is all.


    "gksu" aka "gksudo" is the program which Ubuntu uses by default to run
    programs as root. It does the same thing as sudo except it asks for the
    password with a graphical prompt.

    By "This approach sounds good to me, Better than the gksu way" I meant
    the Mac approach, described above.


    --
    Was ist ist, was nicht ist ist moeglich

  12. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    On 2008-05-26, John F. Morse wrote:
    > Johannes Kroll wrote:
    >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:06:47 GMT
    >> "John F. Morse" wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Probably wouldn't be hard to modify whatever to do like
    >>>> Mac OS X: If you are a sudoer, a popup has your user name
    >>>> in one box and asks you for its password.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you are not a sudoer, both boxes are empty and it asks you
    >>>> for an administrator's name and password.
    >>>>
    >>> Hmmmm. I never noticed that (I seldom use the iMac).
    >>>
    >>> I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.
    >>>
    >>> Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    >>> figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    >>> breaks in.
    >>>

    >>
    >> We're talking about a GUI message box or popup, so the cracker would
    >> have to sitt in front of the machine, or be connected via VNC or an
    >> equivalent over the network. Either way, finding out the current
    >> username would be as easy as typing "whoami" in a terminal, so I don't
    >> think this is an issue.
    >>
    >> This approach sounds good to me. Better than the "gksu" way.

    >
    >
    > Why would you permit a cracker to sit at your machine?!


    And how would the 'cracker" not know that the root account is called
    "root"?

    Or not able to type "id"? (as you said)

    ROTFLMAO

    > If they connected over the network, they would need an account and
    > password. Well, in most cases, but I see there are some really dense
    > people in this group that probably run their computers with no password,
    > or something really stupid like "qwerty" for a password. In those cases
    > any logical discussion is null and void.
    >
    > If someone managed to gain access, then whoami is quite redundant isn't it?
    >
    > I think "sudo" is better than the "gksu" method. Four characters is all.
    >
    > One of the security problems with some Linux distros are the ones that
    > put the username on the screen. Maybe clicking a penguin, etc. This can
    > be turned off to force a user to supply the name for better security.


    I think that at best, this is security through obscurity.

    Choose good passwords, and do not let bad people near your computers.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  13. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.
    >
    > Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    > figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    > breaks in.


    Miscommunication. You get the user name if you are _already_
    logged in to that account _and_ the account has sudo rights _and_
    you try to execute a GUI-based program that needs privileges.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Words of the Wild Wes(t) = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

  14. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Why would you permit a cracker to sit at your machine?!


    No one said anything about letting a cracker sit at your machine.
    The complaint was that someone did not like what they had to do
    to install something. The Mac method lets is fairly easy, and
    doesn't break security as far as I can tell.

    > One of the security problems with some Linux distros are the ones that
    > put the username on the screen. Maybe clicking a penguin, etc. This can
    > be turned off to force a user to supply the name for better security.


    By the way, Mac doesn't put the user name (as in first field of
    /etc/passwd) on the screen, even for the logged in user.
    It puts up the "real name" field of /etc/passwd And then
    only if the current logged in user has sudo rights.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    "Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
    the courage to change the one I can;
    and the wisdom to know it's me."
    -- unknown

  15. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Perhaps young whippersnappers can remember a bunch of hash, but old
    > people often forget to bring up their fly. ;-)
    >
    > If you have dozens of computers, multiple user accounts, e-mail
    > accounts, bank accounts, etc., there's no way you can remember all of
    > the required passwords. No way.


    I do, and I'm over fifty. (Except the ones I haven't used in months.)

    > Writing a password on the wall is fine in most cases. You are, after
    > all, securing your system from evil crackers who roam the Internet. They
    > can't see your wall (unless you provide a Webcam).


    Where this disclaimer fails is when the password is not
    on the wall at home--it's in the desk at work.

    If I were sufficiently dishonest and disgruntled, I am thoroughly
    convinced I could go to my place of employment and easily collect
    a dozen passwords in a few minutes.

    And these passwords "protect" access to information
    that by law is supposed to be private.

    At my previous long-term job, they "protected" information
    that is sensitive for other reasons.

    The best solution I have ever seen in actual use was at my 1990 job.
    There, when passwords expired, you had to select one from a generated
    list. They were not words in any language, so a dictionary attack
    would not work. They held no personal mnemonic connection, so guesses
    based on the person would not work. But most people could remember them
    because they were designed to "look like" English words. You could
    pronounce them. You would pick one you liked the sound of. People
    still wrote them down anyway, but that's another rant.

    A better system, that I've never seen in real world use, would be
    to make them pick from nonsense _phrases_ randomly generated.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    "If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
    a hundred of us could be working with shovels"
    "Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
    a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

  16. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Ignoramus22089 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On 2008-05-25, Moog wrote:
    >> Ignoramus20433 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Why would enabling root use in a non-sudoer account have made your
    >>>> task *any* easier?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Because I was not actually given package name. If I was, I would not
    >>> be complaining. And I did as you suggested: opened terminal, typed su
    >>> -, found out the package name, and installed. But the option of being
    >>> able to enter root password, would be useful.

    >>
    >> You don't know the package name, but you want to install it using root?
    >>
    >> That's just pure lunacy.
    >>
    >> Here fella. I'm a rootkit. Just supply your root password to me.
    >> Cheers?
    >>
    >> Get a grip of your concept of security. Quickly.
    >>

    >
    > Excuse me? I hope that Canonical does not provide such packages.


    ??????????

    "I was not actually given package name."
    "Firefox wants to install a plugin"

    Where does Canonical come into it?

    --
    Moog

    "The G is for the gnarled face of someone who's on ninety thousand
    pounds a week who reckoned he should have had a throw in"

  17. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    On 2008-05-26, Moog wrote:
    > Ignoramus22089 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >> On 2008-05-25, Moog wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus20433 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Why would enabling root use in a non-sudoer account have made your
    >>>>> task *any* easier?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Because I was not actually given package name. If I was, I would not
    >>>> be complaining. And I did as you suggested: opened terminal, typed su
    >>>> -, found out the package name, and installed. But the option of being
    >>>> able to enter root password, would be useful.
    >>>
    >>> You don't know the package name, but you want to install it using root?
    >>>
    >>> That's just pure lunacy.
    >>>
    >>> Here fella. I'm a rootkit. Just supply your root password to me.
    >>> Cheers?
    >>>
    >>> Get a grip of your concept of security. Quickly.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Excuse me? I hope that Canonical does not provide such packages.

    >
    > ??????????
    >
    > "I was not actually given package name."
    > "Firefox wants to install a plugin"
    >
    > Where does Canonical come into it?
    >


    Firefox picks plugins from what is available from Canonical, that's
    why.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  18. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Ignoramus7406 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    > Firefox picks plugins from what is available from Canonical, that's
    > why.


    Really?

    Firefox installs plugins and extensions from the author.

    Care to take a look here?
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:7

    Ubuntu has specific plugins in the repositories, but your statement is
    completely inaccurate.

    --
    Moog

    "The G is for the gnarled face of someone who's on ninety thousand
    pounds a week who reckoned he should have had a throw in"

  19. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    On 2008-05-26, John F. Morse wrote:
    > Jim Cochrane wrote:
    >> On 2008-05-24, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-05-24, Bill wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Ignoramus20433 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Here's one more reason why I do not like the principle of supplying
    >>>>>> ...
    >>>>>>
    >>>> The problem is the amount of time and hassle to do it. That's how
    >>>> ...
    >>>> As opposed to other unix solution, which is to supply a root password
    >>>> to get root credentials.
    >>>>
    >>> What you fail to consider is how much time and hassle your continuous
    >>> stream of questions are to the rest of us.
    >>>
    >>> Someone said once that there is no "stupid question" but they left it up
    >>> to you to decide if asking the question is stupid.
    >>>
    >>> Go back to Windows, us it, be happy, and leave the rest of us in peace
    >>> so we can help those who need our assistance.
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's not a very helpful response.

    >
    >
    > Perhaps it is because it wasn't addressed to you?


    I think you know what I meant - it was not helpful to him.

    You complained about his many questions to this group:

    >>> What you fail to consider is how much time and hassle your continuous
    >>> stream of questions are to the rest of us.


    ubuntu and kubuntu, being more "user friendly" than many other Linux
    distributions, tends to have a lot of users who are relatively (some
    extremely, I'm sure) naive and who will ask, in forums like this,
    relatively naive questions (especially compared to NGs like
    comp.unix.programmer). This seems to be an odd group to be picky
    about naive posts. (Actually, Ignoramus20433 is a lot less naive than
    a lot of people posting here.)

    My point is that it would be much more efficient for you to, instead
    of chewing out everyone here asking what you feel are naive or stupid
    questions, simply use your kill file so that you don't see any more
    posts from people whose posts you don't like. As well, it's more
    efficient for those reading the group - e.g., not needing to skip over
    responses that someone should go back to Windows.

    Finally, it seems to me that a better attitude in a group like this is to
    tolerate posts that are naive, and to try to be as helpful as possible -
    in the interest of helping more people to be able to use Linux systems
    effectively and thus free them from the bondage suffered by most Windows
    users, rather than scare them back into the jaws of MediocreSoft ;-)

    --


  20. Re: Another problem with Sudo

    Ignoramus7406 wrote:
    > On 2008-05-26, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> Johannes Kroll wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:06:47 GMT
    >>> "John F. Morse" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Probably wouldn't be hard to modify whatever to do like
    >>>>> Mac OS X: If you are a sudoer, a popup has your user name
    >>>>> in one box and asks you for its password.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you are not a sudoer, both boxes are empty and it asks you
    >>>>> for an administrator's name and password.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hmmmm. I never noticed that (I seldom use the iMac).
    >>>>
    >>>> I guess that's just another black eye for Apple's view on security.
    >>>>
    >>>> Providing a cracker the username cuts out the exponential security
    >>>> figure, meaning all a cracker needs to do is run passwords until he
    >>>> breaks in.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> We're talking about a GUI message box or popup, so the cracker would
    >>> have to sitt in front of the machine, or be connected via VNC or an
    >>> equivalent over the network. Either way, finding out the current
    >>> username would be as easy as typing "whoami" in a terminal, so I don't
    >>> think this is an issue.
    >>>
    >>> This approach sounds good to me. Better than the "gksu" way.
    >>>

    >> Why would you permit a cracker to sit at your machine?!
    >>

    >
    > And how would the 'cracker" not know that the root account is called
    > "root"?
    >



    A cracker KNOWS there is a Root account. You don't assign Root a
    password, so the cracker has no chance to crack in through Root.

    Is this such a difficult thing to understand?!


    > Or not able to type "id"? (as you said)
    >
    > ROTFLMAO
    >



    Your laughing and spending your time on the floor is perhaps why you
    can't learn anything.

    For instance, I did not say "id" as you state.

    What I said (quoted below) is "If someone managed to gain access, then
    whoami is quite redundant isn't it?"

    In other words, since they logged in, they obviously know who they are.


    >> If they connected over the network, they would need an account and
    >> password. Well, in most cases, but I see there are some really dense
    >> people in this group that probably run their computers with no password,
    >> or something really stupid like "qwerty" for a password. In those cases
    >> any logical discussion is null and void.
    >>
    >> If someone managed to gain access, then whoami is quite redundant isn't it?
    >>
    >> I think "sudo" is better than the "gksu" method. Four characters is all.
    >>
    >> One of the security problems with some Linux distros are the ones that
    >> put the username on the screen. Maybe clicking a penguin, etc. This can
    >> be turned off to force a user to supply the name for better security.
    >>

    >
    > I think that at best, this is security through obscurity.
    >



    Isn't that the method used by any security idea? Do you not approve of
    it because of some dislike for obscurity?


    > Choose good passwords, and do not let bad people near your computers.



    Exactly.

    "Near" also includes via wire.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast