4 ms·

The root account shouldn't exist either. Having god accounts is a bad idea security wise. Instead everything should follow the principle of least privilege.

cyberax 11mo ago
This sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. You always end up with an object that has all the privileges.
- rurban 11mo ago
  Which is a well known anti-pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object
  - lucketone 11mo ago
    That one seems unrelated with OS security model and root account. (One must squint really hard to see root and oop god object as same)
nkrisc 11mo ago
I own the computer. The least privilege I have encompasses every privilege.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  You could own a microwave, but there doesn't have to be a button that makes it run with the door open. The UI of devices doesn't let just anything happen. Similarly an operating system doesn't need to make accessible a way to do everything to the user.
  - esseph 11mo ago
    "an operating system doesn't need to make accessible a way to do everything to the user" Microsoft and Apple both seem to think this way. Questionable results.
  - crabmusket 11mo ago
    I instinctually agree with nkrisc, but this is an interesting line of thought. What's an example of something that nobody should be allowed to do e.g. on a laptop? If I buy a system with OS stuff set up from the get-go. What abilities do you withdraw from the user?
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      >What's an example of something that nobody should be allowed to do e.g. on a laptop? Clearing required efi variables, bricking the motherboard. https://www.phoronix.com/news/UEFI-rm-root-directory https://www.phoronix.com/news/UEFI-rm-root-directory
  - inkyoto 11mo ago
    > You could own a microwave, but there doesn't have to be a button that makes it run with the door open. The UI of devices doesn't let just anything happen. And where is the UI capability that prevents microwave users from putting liquids (e.g. grape juice) that generate plasma storms inside the microwave and often result in fires? Or, as a bonus, crinkled foil. To state the matter bluntly – the entire diatribe concerning the system’s role in defining capabilities is as constructive as insisting that every computing device and appliance on the planet must implement B2-level RBAC and capability-based controls – an argument so unmoored from practical reality that one wonders whether its proponent has ever been burdened by implementation.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      The UI is missing because the law doesn't require it. That's why it's possible to by tablesaws without a SawStop like safety mechanism despite it being superior to have (ignoring price). Some people will choose the cheaper and less safe option because they don't value safety as much.
  - nkrisc 11mo ago
    > Similarly an operating system doesn't need to make accessible a way to do everything to the user. Then who is it available to, if not me, the owner of the computer? What if the operating system isn't doing the things it should that I don't have access to? Do I have to bring it to someone and beg them to fix the computer for me?
- davexunit 11mo ago
  But do you want your web browser to have the privilege to read your SSH private key? That's the risk of running programs "as you".
jandrese 11mo ago
The problem is how do you set up those permissions without a god object? How do you fix ones that are broken on a running system? Ultimately the security systems that introduce high complexity in the name of fine grain permission controls end up being the most fragile and hardest to verify. People get stuff wrong then break it further trying to get their job done. The better system is sometimes the one that doesn’t have all of the features but is comprehensible to humans.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  >how do you set up those permissions without a god object Let the operating system define default granted permissions for OS apps. Have the OS let the user grant permissions at install / runtime for apps.
  - theamk 11mo ago
    If an app requires a permission, how does OS know that it's OK to grant it? For example, I want to backup my system, so I install app which needs a permission called "bypass any file access control and let me read every file". How does OS know it's legitimate and not malware trying to steal data? It could be "this requires special digital signature from OS manufacturer" -> then the private key of this digital signature is a "god object" It could be "this requires confirmation from the physically present user" -> then you basically have passwordless sudo It could be "this requires users pin/password/biometrics" -> then you have regular sudo Either way, there is some source of authority in here, even if it's called "root key" or "user pin" instead of "root account".
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      >then the private key of this digital signature is a "god object" You could instead require the app to be part of the OS. The next gotcha would from you I imagine is that the build farm for the next OS update is a god object and at that point I think this is a meaningless tangent. I'll concede and say you have to trust your OS creator. But you always have to trust your OS creator for any OS. >then you basically have passwordless sudo If sudo couldn't be used from other programs / she'll scripts and doesn't give access to a god account, but instead did simple things like let you use ping, then that seems fine to me. But why require people to manually wrap programs when it could be handled automatically. >Either way, there is some source of authority in here Sure, but it's a system that's much better than sudo.
esseph 11mo ago
You should read over NIST 800-53 AC-2 and AC-6. They go over why privileged accounts are important, why they are used, and how they protect users and organizations. JIT access should be the goal. Scroll down to: Implementation Guidance https://csf.tools/reference/cloud-controls-matrix/v4-0/iam/iam-10/ https://csf.tools/reference/cloud-controls-matrix/v4-0/iam/i...
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  >JIT access should be the goal. Individual privileges for specific things should be given access to instead of giving god access to a system.
  - esseph 11mo ago
    I hear what you are saying but many, many people who have dedicated their life to this topic disagree with you. Onions have layers for a reason. RBAC by nature requires a Creator. ZeroTrust networks still require gateways.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      I'm not saying there can't be an admin who can create roles, or do some extra authentication to gain that privilege. I am saying that it shouldn't require assuming an all powerful user to do it. You should be able to do it from your actual account. This is good for keeping accurate records too since all actions are done by the users themselves. Yes, technically sudo can be logged, but it's bypassable by starting a shell.
      - esseph 11mo ago
        Elevated credentials for said users segment access while still allowing the same user to access more administrative function. Proper group / sudoers mappings can go a long way, but you still want that administrative break between access levels.
Elucalidavah 11mo ago
If you have a privilege to replace the kernel or bootloader, you effectively have all privileges on that system. Therefore, there's no need to complicate the access limitations when you get full access anyway.
iberator 11mo ago
There has been no such operating system in the past 60 years. All systems have root/admin/god accounts

cyberax 11mo ago

This sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. You always end up with an object that has all the privileges.

rurban 11mo ago
Which is a well known anti-pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object
- lucketone 11mo ago
  That one seems unrelated with OS security model and root account. (One must squint really hard to see root and oop god object as same)

nkrisc 11mo ago

I own the computer. The least privilege I have encompasses every privilege.

charcircuit 11mo ago
You could own a microwave, but there doesn't have to be a button that makes it run with the door open. The UI of devices doesn't let just anything happen. Similarly an operating system doesn't need to make accessible a way to do everything to the user.
- esseph 11mo ago
  "an operating system doesn't need to make accessible a way to do everything to the user" Microsoft and Apple both seem to think this way. Questionable results.
- crabmusket 11mo ago
  I instinctually agree with nkrisc, but this is an interesting line of thought. What's an example of something that nobody should be allowed to do e.g. on a laptop? If I buy a system with OS stuff set up from the get-go. What abilities do you withdraw from the user?
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    >What's an example of something that nobody should be allowed to do e.g. on a laptop? Clearing required efi variables, bricking the motherboard. https://www.phoronix.com/news/UEFI-rm-root-directory https://www.phoronix.com/news/UEFI-rm-root-directory
- inkyoto 11mo ago
  > You could own a microwave, but there doesn't have to be a button that makes it run with the door open. The UI of devices doesn't let just anything happen. And where is the UI capability that prevents microwave users from putting liquids (e.g. grape juice) that generate plasma storms inside the microwave and often result in fires? Or, as a bonus, crinkled foil. To state the matter bluntly – the entire diatribe concerning the system’s role in defining capabilities is as constructive as insisting that every computing device and appliance on the planet must implement B2-level RBAC and capability-based controls – an argument so unmoored from practical reality that one wonders whether its proponent has ever been burdened by implementation.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    The UI is missing because the law doesn't require it. That's why it's possible to by tablesaws without a SawStop like safety mechanism despite it being superior to have (ignoring price). Some people will choose the cheaper and less safe option because they don't value safety as much.
- nkrisc 11mo ago
  > Similarly an operating system doesn't need to make accessible a way to do everything to the user. Then who is it available to, if not me, the owner of the computer? What if the operating system isn't doing the things it should that I don't have access to? Do I have to bring it to someone and beg them to fix the computer for me?
davexunit 11mo ago
But do you want your web browser to have the privilege to read your SSH private key? That's the risk of running programs "as you".

jandrese 11mo ago

The problem is how do you set up those permissions without a god object? How do you fix ones that are broken on a running system? Ultimately the security systems that introduce high complexity in the name of fine grain permission controls end up being the most fragile and hardest to verify. People get stuff wrong then break it further trying to get their job done. The better system is sometimes the one that doesn’t have all of the features but is comprehensible to humans.

charcircuit 11mo ago
>how do you set up those permissions without a god object Let the operating system define default granted permissions for OS apps. Have the OS let the user grant permissions at install / runtime for apps.
- theamk 11mo ago
  If an app requires a permission, how does OS know that it's OK to grant it? For example, I want to backup my system, so I install app which needs a permission called "bypass any file access control and let me read every file". How does OS know it's legitimate and not malware trying to steal data? It could be "this requires special digital signature from OS manufacturer" -> then the private key of this digital signature is a "god object" It could be "this requires confirmation from the physically present user" -> then you basically have passwordless sudo It could be "this requires users pin/password/biometrics" -> then you have regular sudo Either way, there is some source of authority in here, even if it's called "root key" or "user pin" instead of "root account".
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    >then the private key of this digital signature is a "god object" You could instead require the app to be part of the OS. The next gotcha would from you I imagine is that the build farm for the next OS update is a god object and at that point I think this is a meaningless tangent. I'll concede and say you have to trust your OS creator. But you always have to trust your OS creator for any OS. >then you basically have passwordless sudo If sudo couldn't be used from other programs / she'll scripts and doesn't give access to a god account, but instead did simple things like let you use ping, then that seems fine to me. But why require people to manually wrap programs when it could be handled automatically. >Either way, there is some source of authority in here Sure, but it's a system that's much better than sudo.

esseph 11mo ago

You should read over NIST 800-53 AC-2 and AC-6. They go over why privileged accounts are important, why they are used, and how they protect users and organizations. JIT access should be the goal. Scroll down to: Implementation Guidance https://csf.tools/reference/cloud-controls-matrix/v4-0/iam/iam-10/ https://csf.tools/reference/cloud-controls-matrix/v4-0/iam/i...

charcircuit 11mo ago
>JIT access should be the goal. Individual privileges for specific things should be given access to instead of giving god access to a system.
- esseph 11mo ago
  I hear what you are saying but many, many people who have dedicated their life to this topic disagree with you. Onions have layers for a reason. RBAC by nature requires a Creator. ZeroTrust networks still require gateways.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    I'm not saying there can't be an admin who can create roles, or do some extra authentication to gain that privilege. I am saying that it shouldn't require assuming an all powerful user to do it. You should be able to do it from your actual account. This is good for keeping accurate records too since all actions are done by the users themselves. Yes, technically sudo can be logged, but it's bypassable by starting a shell.
    - esseph 11mo ago
      Elevated credentials for said users segment access while still allowing the same user to access more administrative function. Proper group / sudoers mappings can go a long way, but you still want that administrative break between access levels.

Elucalidavah 11mo ago

If you have a privilege to replace the kernel or bootloader, you effectively have all privileges on that system. Therefore, there's no need to complicate the access limitations when you get full access anyway.

iberator 11mo ago

There has been no such operating system in the past 60 years. All systems have root/admin/god accounts