4 ms·

Isn't that identical to 'sudo -i'?

• RealStickman_ 4y ago
  It gives you a pretty similar result in the end. From my understanding, with 'sudo -i', you're still using sudo itself to run commands as root (or any other specified user). 'sudo su -' instead executes the 'su -' command, giving you a root shell, as a superuser with 'sudo'. If you left the 'sudo' out, you'd have to type the root password.
  • tremon 4y ago
    sudo -i and sudo -s also give you a root shell. "sudo su" is a tautology that's unnecessary is almost all cases.
    • yrro 4y ago
      $ sudo -l [...] User yrro may run the following commands on fw33748-02: (ALL : ALL) ALL (ALL : ALL) !/usr/bin/sudo, !/usr/bin/su, !/bin/su So $ sudo su - Sorry, user yrro is not allowed to execute '/usr/bin/su -' as root on fw33748-02.example.qq.
      • tremon 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but: $ sudo /bin/sh -c su - It's never useful to deny certain commands to a user if that user is allowed to open a shell. Any shell. So you probably want to change that first line to (ALL : ALL) NOEXEC: ALL and provide a whitelist for all tools that do spawn children as part of their normal operation (such as apt, dpkg, and probably half of all unix tooling).
        • yrro 4y ago
          It's how I've trained myself to avoid 'sudo su -' - by removing my user's ability to use sudo to run su ;)
• folmar 4y ago
  No, `sudo su -` gives you a shell resembling one you would get when logging in interactively as root, while `sudo -i` applies some of its configuration. Which is not always well suited for interactive uses to put it lightly. For example PATH is set to something smaller than I would like.