4 ms·
You're having trouble thinking about security, where the goal and the threat are as important as the solution. For example, a short fence can be considered a s
by awakeasleep 6y ago
You're having trouble thinking about security, where the goal and the threat are as important as the solution.
For example, a short fence can be considered a security measure, though it can be purposefully stepped over. Maybe it only serves as a guide, or maybe it protects a window from a nearby soccer field.
In that same way, the sudo example you're deriding can provide the 'security' of making the proper workflows more visible to the user- without being designed to keep out a malicious professional hacker.
- dependenttypes 6y agoSudo in this instance is an easy way to allow the user to call service without giving them root access, thus a security measure. It has nothing to do with making things more visible to the user.
- snazz 6y agoWhile you're right, this might be a reasonable compromise if you trust the person. The advantage of restricting their sudo use is to make it harder for them to accidentally mess something up, not protect against a malicious user.
- dependenttypes 6y ago> The advantage of restricting their sudo use is to make it harder for them to accidentally mess something up, not protect against a malicious user. What makes you think that?
- nix23 6y agoWell sudo for me has one good point, i can see witch person did something with root-rights, a bit like a lightweight auditd, but security to me really means something else, its here or its not, correctly implemented or not (in a technical and especially in the management space)
- nix23 6y agoSecurity to me means that someone that can restart a service can 'really' don't do anything else, if i trust 'the' peoples they have already root/management-console access etc, if not they have a jail/container etc. Half-backed sudo-stuff has nothing to-do with trust nor security