5 ms·
> Fair enough but what do you recommend? why do you need to have sudo? I'm perfectly fine without it. sudo is maybe useful in the case where others on the syst
by Sjonny 6y ago
> Fair enough but what do you recommend?
why do you need to have sudo? I'm perfectly fine without it. sudo is maybe useful in the case where others on the system don't need to know the a password to run as someone else (including root) but need to be able to do that anyway.
sudo seems to have gotten a big installation bases through ubuntu and everybody thinks it's normal now, but really for me it's not.
- GoblinSlayer 6y agoI want to start and stop a couple of systemd services remotely. Currently I expose the command with sudo and run it under a remotely connected user. What are other options?
- Spivak 6y agoYou don't actually have to be root at all to manage systemd services. If you give the user `org.freedesktop.systemd1.manage-units` in Polkit then they can just run systemctl as their user and it will work. If you only want to allow specific units the authorizer is passed the unit under `action.lookup("unit")`.
- ktpsns 6y agoIn your case either use plain /sbin/su: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/su.1.html https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/su.1.html or login via root. Your use case sounds very sudo-like, thought. Probably stick to sudo.
- GoblinSlayer 6y agoIt's a batch job. Ah, I see it mentions runuser, will check it.
- moistbar 6y agosudo doesn't have to grant full root access to everyone in the group. It can be set up such that certain users only have the ability to run specified commands as root, which is handy for orgs where you might have a group of tier 1 techs that you want to be able to run certain scripts (written by tier 2 or 3, of course) that require root, but you don't trust the engineers enough to have root access to everything.
- 65a 6y agoIt is almost always the case that a sufficiently malicious user can find a way to turn that into full blown root access.