Re: Of mice and men

"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j1Lee.22809$3U.1152272@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> jce wrote:
>> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> [more than what appears but I snipped forgetting to mark that in
>> here...sorry]

>>>It is an open OS, that runs as a client/server model, full fledged
>>>multi-user system ... unix at the command line, with enough security that
>>>logged in as a normal user, I cannot change even another user's data, let
>>>alone the OS software (as with a virus)
>> This would depend on how well the sysadm (you or otherwise) and your
>> users maintained their environment no?
>> This is no different to many environments OS - even windows. Your system
>> is only as strong as its weakest point.

> No, not really. Security does *NOT* depend on my users at all. They are
> not given the choice. It is not "voluntary", any more than bank security
> is voluntary by the customers. It is not even voluntary for me. The system
> will not work unless I log in, and there is no way to just hit "cancel" on
> the login screen. It will shake it's head, and refuse to work.

So what does chmod do? Or do you somehow disable that from working?

What about services - are you sure what you're running and that they are
secure (I've noticed an increasing number of questions regarding settings of
sendmail etc that most users don't need in the install to prevent such
problems)

> It is really nice, in fact, to be able to allow the grandkids to sit down
> and play with my machine. With their own account, and guest accounts set
> up, I no longer have to worry about someone else screwing my work tools
> up. In the past, I always had extra machines for that. And *I* do backup
> on those accounts. If they screw them up I just restore them.
Nothing wrong with backups :-)

>>>Then, on top of that, you have a user logging in and using a GUI,
>>>browser, etc., in the local user space. That is the reason the security
>>>is so good ... if I log in as a user and erase everything I can find on
>>>the disk, I only harm my own account.
>>
>> Again, this is not wholly true. It depends on ....see above.
>>
>> There are many programs that have in the past been used to exploit
>> Linux - programs running as "root" even though you are just a plebian
>> user.
>
> Sorry, but really true. I can give a user root access by giving them the
> root password, but they cannot "run as root" without it. And you cannot
> run as "george" without logging into george's account. You cannot run at
> all without logging in, anymore than you can use your bank card without a
> pin number.

Please check your system for programs set with the SUID bit enabled - then
tell me you cannot run something like root.

ls -alF `find / -perm -4000` > yoursuidreport.txt

You may have installed something as "root" that enables the program to
"execute" as root. Look ito something like sendmail.

> If you ask to run a program that uses root privleges "as a plebian user"
> it will tell you that you do not have disk access. If you do not have the
> root password, you do not get access. Period.
See above

> I expect you could get a distribution with little or no security if you
> really want to, but I am not sure why you would want to. It would be a bit
> like buying a house and removing all the walls/doors/locks.
I don't want to. I'm just saying that you can have an alarm system
installed throughout your house, but that doesn't mean anything if you leave
one room unprotected with the code on a *** paper.

>> I'd be less inclined to comment if you stated that its "more
>> automatically encouraged". Many distributions will force you to use a non
>> admin account....but this could also be done in Windows etc etc....people
>> just view windows as a "home" OS and most "home" users just don't want to
>> deal with the fact that there are more than one way to protect yourself.
> Your user ID does not change just because you do a CD command.
Nor does it in windows, OS2, DOS,Z/OS........

> Directories and files under Linux are *owned* by a specific user ID, That
> relates to your login account, not to where you happen to be sitting on
> the disk.
You can also do this in Windows and others

> You might be able to CD to another user's account (IF and ONLY IF you have
> access access), but that does *not* mean you can write to it, nor does it
> mean you can read it. You must, for someone else to even see the
> directory, give others that access.
You can also do this in Windows and others

> I could also, if I happen to be sitting at the operators console, boot a
> different system and get at the disks. No system is "secure" if you are at
> the console booting it, including the bank's.
Absolutely

> And it could *NOT* be done with windows without revising the entire disk
> system. The disk files in windows do not even *have* an owner associated
> with them, so limiting access to the file owner is rather difficult.
Funny that my college account was windows based and I didn't have access to
anything then....I wonder why Microsoft created Users/Groups and Access
Control Lists and cluster servers if they didn't have any ownership
protection....

It's more a "default" and more "simple" with Linux - but there are BOOKS on
the holes that exist in Linux distributions/applications. I do agree that
it is perhaps "easier" to get the level of control you want.

> Windows is not set up as a multi-user machine. The files are not owned by
> anybody in the first place. They are automatically owned by the program
> running on the CPU at that particular moment. Who or what started that
> program is not even a consideration.
*Your* windows is a not a full blown multi-user machine. Most people just
don't want to think of the "production" level security for a home system.
Again, I think it's more "default" than it is "ability".

<snip>
> You make a *very* valid point regarding docs. The real problem is, I am
> finding, not so much the lack of docs as the lack of indexing. Everything
> is there, filed under some obscure name that only god knows. If you start
> at the beginning, and read 5000 pages, you have a fair chance of even
> finding it. Read 30,000 pages and you probably will. My problem is that I
> am getting old and grumpy, and both my eyes and patience are not what they
> use to be.
>
I used to hate it when I was working on some AIX stuff - they used to
"forget" to install man pages. I actually find that the command line
switches of most commands are well documented (overly so in some cases :-) )

JCE


.