Since you don't need to be root...

If you only use the GUI, you probably won't do much damage. If you use
the command line, it's too easy to type rm -r * in the wrong directory
to hose your system.

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root...

Until you do.

Try running fsck or mknod without it, for example.

Or a 'umount -f'. There are plenty of days where
I've needed to be root.

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root...

Until you do.

Try running fsck or mknod without it, for example.

Or a 'umount -f'. There are plenty of days where
I've needed to be root.

This is why the "sudo" command was invented.

Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root...

Until you do.

Try running fsck or mknod without it, for example.

Or a 'umount -f'. There are plenty of days where
I've needed to be root.

This is why the "sudo" command was invented.

That's running as root, dude.

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root...

Until you do.

Try running fsck or mknod without it, for example.

Or a 'umount -f'. There are plenty of days where
I've needed to be root.

This is why the "sudo" command was invented.

That's running as root, dude.

But just for a single command, so you minimize the risk. The
recommendation is against logging in as root.

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Try running fsck or mknod without it, for example.

Or a 'umount -f'. There are plenty of days where
I've needed to be root.

This is why the "sudo" command was invented.

In article <dfmanno-11F1B3.22142203122008@feeder.motzarella.org>,
"D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

In article <jollyroger-5869D6.14574503122008@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

"We have removed the KnowledgeBase article because it was old and
inaccurate," Apple spokesman Bill Evans, told Macworld. "The Mac is
designed with built-in technologies that provide protection against
malicious software and security threats right out of the box."

Unless someone wants to be root on their system...

And that's NOT right out of the box behavior.

Nor do most Mac users need or want to be root.

OK, I've seen or heard hundreds of times that it's a bad thing to run as
root, but I have yet to see anyone explain _why_. It seems to be taken
as self-evident.

Well, it's not evident to me. Why is it a bad thing to run as root?

There's a well-known security principle called "Least Privilege" -- only
run with as much privilege as you need. That way, mistakes are less
likely to cause major damage.

Since you don't need to be root to do anything on OS X, it's safest not
to do it.

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root to do anything on OS X, it's safest not
to do it.

Wikipedia has a decent article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege

This is the reason I recommend Mac users use non-administrative user
accounts for day-to-day tasks.

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root to do anything on OS X, it's safest not
to do it.

Wikipedia has a decent article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege

This is the reason I recommend Mac users use non-administrative user
accounts for day-to-day tasks.

What's the difference between the two accounts if you manage to
install in your user malware that was recording your keystrokes?

OK, I've seen or heard hundreds of times that it's a bad thing to run as
root, but I have yet to see anyone explain _why_. It seems to be taken
as self-evident.

That's running as root, dude.

An experienced admin aliases 'rm' to 'rm -i' in both his user
and root accounts.

To be ultra-safe with the 'rm' command, make it an 'ls' command
first, check that's the correct target, then do an up-arrow to
get the commandline again, type a Ctl/A to get to the beginning
of the line, Ctl/D's to delete the 'ls', then type '\rm -rf' to
execute the 'rm' and bypass the interactive questioning of 'rm -i'.

Sometimes Finder won't do something because of
permissions, and fails to ask for the admin passwd
or fails even when it does ask and you give it.

# Alternative Sudo Authentication
#
# By default sudo will require the password of an admin
# user already logged in. This has one drawback: if an
# interloper acquires the admin password the interloper
# by default also has access to the root account.

Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Since you don't need to be root...

Until you do.

Try running fsck or mknod without it, for example.

Or a 'umount -f'. There are plenty of days where
I've needed to be root.

This is why the "sudo" command was invented.

That's running as root, dude.

BASH might be born again, but it still has sh functions.
[...]
I use tcsh for interactivity, but I script in /bin/sh. Bourne Shell.

Here's a GUI tool to run something as root that works
under OS 10.3.9, will likely work on OS 10.4.11, and I
don't know about OS 10.5 -

http://personalpages.tds.net/~brian_hill/pseudo.html

Well, ugh, I guess some people would use it, albeit it
hopes you'll live up to its $15 shareware request.

$15 to execute something as root?

Troubled Tony wrote:
To be ultra-safe with the 'rm' command, make it an 'ls' command
first, check that's the correct target, then do an up-arrow to
get the commandline again, type a Ctl/A to get to the beginning
of the line, Ctl/D's to delete the 'ls', then type '\rm -rf' to
execute the 'rm' and bypass the interactive questioning of 'rm -i'.

Easier:

ls xy*z
rm !$

If I have enough sense to do the 'ls' then I don't need the -i

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

An experienced admin aliases 'rm' to 'rm -i' in both his user
and root accounts.

Not a bad idea for root, It would drive me nuts in my user account.

There's an alias you can set up in the c shell, creates a "trash"
folder. I've never got it working with Bash.

alias del 'mv \!* ~/trash_dir'

Troubled Tony wrote:
What's the difference between the two accounts if you manage to
install in your user malware that was recording your keystrokes?

The difference is that one account is not able to install that.

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> writes:

Sometimes Finder won't do something because of
permissions, and fails to ask for the admin passwd
or fails even when it does ask and you give it.

Here's a GUI tool to run something as root that works
under OS 10.3.9, will likely work on OS 10.4.11, and I
don't know about OS 10.5 -

http://personalpages.tds.net/~brian_hill/pseudo.html

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's running as root, dude.

Well, no it's not.

Troubled Tony <nonexistent@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is why the "sudo" command was invented.

That's running as root, dude.

Yes, but it's not the same as using "su" to open a root shell, which was
your solution. It's root for one command as opposed to an indefinite
period of root access.

Finder will ask for confirmation of emptying the trash, no
different.