5 ms·
Would be possible to share those reasons?
by Attummm 3y ago
Would be possible to share those reasons?
- fanf2 3y agoSeveral are outlined in TFA
- no_time 3y agoTangent, I can't find what "TFA" stands for. My gut tells me it's "The Fucking Article". Am I correct?
- worble 3y agoYes
- InvaderFizz 3y agoYes. TFA = The Fucking Article. Much like: RTFM = Read The Fucking Manual.
- NavinF 3y agoYes, but in polite company you can pretend it means "The Freaking Article"
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoIn polite company you say "The article" or "read the manual" and patiently await your reward, which is their asking "what does the 'F' stand for?", to which you reply only with a condescending look and raised eyebrow(s). That look of realisation is precious. I've manufactured this experience once or twice, and it's wonderful.
- tremon 3y agoFine instead of Freaking is much nicer.
- klibertp 3y agoI think "Friendly" was/is popular explanation where devs tried to translate their subculture into something generally digestible.
- evilduck 3y agoDigestible maybe, but swapping "friendly" in for "fucking" changes the tone and intent of someone's statement. At least "freaking" expresses similar, if muted, exclamation. A recipient who is being not-so-subtly reproached with an F-bomb acronym might misunderstand what is being implied.
- hinkley 3y agoBut when the person asking was management, and asking for the tenth time, there was a decided advantage to changing the tone. All of that is now wrapped up in the initialism.
- dotancohen 3y agoOr the fine article.
- mannykannot 3y agoAs I said to my mother-in-law, the 'F' is silent.
- dotancohen 3y agoWhen Gwen Shotwell was asked about the acronym BFR on international television, she replied "Big Falcon Rocket". Lovely response, quite dependent on context!
- pxc 3y agoThis is like how I use 'ofc' to abbreviate 'of course'. Once upon a time the 'f' may have stood for something, but I never use it that way. For me, 'the F is silent'.
- qazxcvbnm 3y agoI pretend its The Forementioned Article
- codetrotter 3y agoI like to read it as The Featured Article
- edgyquant 3y agoI really hate this acronym and this comment is no different from saying “read the article” which is against the guidelines here
- codetrotter 3y ago> saying “read the article” which is against the guidelines here The guidelines say that you should not accuse someone of not having read the article. However, as the guidelines say it is fine to point out that something is mentioned in the article. There is a subtle difference. From the guidelines: > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". Parent comment was in line with the guidelines IMO. And as for “TFA” as an acronym I like to read it as meaning “The Featured Article”. Then it seems nice and friendly.
- taneq 3y agoI'd assume any code in a non-memorysafe language that parses any freeform data entered by the user is a potentially exploitable security vulnerability, so an interactive shell is a huge surface area for attacks?
- dsr_ 3y agoYes, but irrelevant here. Basically any shell access means you've changed from preventing remote code execution to preventing privilege escalation, which is much harder.
- hinkley 3y agoWhich is why sudo has its own editor. If you fuck up the sudo file while saving it, you might no longer be able to log in to fix it. Before I knew about sudoedit I would open two shells as root, edit the file, then use a third window to make sure I could still sudo. With two windows I could accidentally close the subshell in one without locking myself out. Think if it like linemen, who use two tethers for climbing structures. They are never detached from the safety lines.
- neuromanser 3y agosudo visudo
- crabbone 3y agoHere are some: * Doesn't scale. Having passwords in a plain text file is not a scalable solution for users directory. Can probably go up to a hundred users, but not much more. * In computer clusters you want user identity to "stick" to the user when they use multiple machines, containers etc. That's why you have LDAP... but it doesn't help all that much because user id is encoded into the file system (huge mistake...) which makes it very difficult to contain users to things they should control. If your only mechanism was the /etc/passwd, it would mean you'd have to constantly synchronize this file across all those machines and containers you have.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoTo anyone reading this and thinking "yeah dummy, of course it doesn't scale because you're not supposed to store passwords in plain text in the first place" I'll direct you to Chapter 7ish of The Linux Programming Interface. If you look in your /etc/passwd right now, you'll almost certainly see a single "x" where the (EDIT: no, it was still encrypted!) password originally was - nowadays that single "x" is an instruction to go look in /etc/shadow instead, for the salted hash of the password you're trying to check. I think this minimizes the number of users who need read permissions to /etc/shadow, and the amount of time they need it for. This has been your seemingly useless bit of Linux trivia for today. :)
- dsr_ 3y agoplaintext vs plain text unencrypted vs unstructured Of course, unstructured is also incorrect; the passwd and shadow files have structured records, one per line.
- photochemsyn 3y agoAsk the chatbot: 1. system: in the context of setting up secure remote access to a Unix-like system, discuss whether relying on the passwd file and shell behavior as an effective means of authentication and access control is a good approach. What are some reasons this is not (or is) an effective approach, which should not (or should) be used on modern production systems. user: system administrator on a Unix-based network. assistant: technically, there are several reasons... 2. If you have a collection of Unix systems, can you reasonably do a certain amount of access control to your overall environment by forcing different logins to have specific administrative shells?