Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:19:55 -0400 From: asym <bsdlists@rfnj.org> To: Kurt Seifried <listuser@seifried.org>, <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Adding OpenBSD sudo to the FreeBSD base system? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050721161529.038fb470@mail.rfnj.org> In-Reply-To: <008101c58e30$1066e3c0$1a64110a@64DOG> References: <42dfd7c8.619f0abe.46ed.ffffca84@mx.gmail.com> <008101c58e30$1066e3c0$1a64110a@64DOG>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 16:09 7/21/2005, Kurt Seifried wrote: >Uhh you people realize sudo is COMPLEMENTARY to su? All my Linux and >OpenBSD systems (wait for it.....) have _both_ installed by default. Crazy >huh? Some example commands: > >sudo ifconfig blah [enters own password] >sudo su - [enters own password] >sudo sendmail -q [enters own password] >su - [enters root password] > >Whoa! what's #2? And what's #4? Holy cow! For me, #2 and #4 are replaced by "sudo -u root sh" or some other shell, totally obviating the need to have su at all. I realize some people use it in shell scripts and so on, which I will refrain from commenting on, which would make a sudo "su" mode a requirement to have it *replace* su, much like the various "vi" invocation implementations. I see absolutely no reason why sudo should not be in the base system. Not one. I see almost as little need to make it behave as "su" when called as "su", but I can at least see the reasoning behind it, and I also understand that doing so would not be difficult. >Folks, this is by far the stupidest argument/discussion I have ever seen >on a security related mailing list (and I've been on BugTraq and >Full-Disclosure for a long time so that's saying something). If "myth-busting" as I've done with Stephen is "stupid" well, go ahead at tattoo it on my forehead. I'm from a place where education is the cure for stupidity, not the incarnation of it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.1.2.2.20050721161529.038fb470>