[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       full-disclosure
Subject:    Re: [Full-disclosure] [Fwd: Re:  windows future]
From:       "Elazar Broad" <elazar () hushmail ! com>
Date:       2009-08-30 7:48:42
Message-ID: 20090830074842.53C03B8043 () smtp ! hushmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:20:09 -0400 Peter Besenbruch <prb@lava.net>
wrote:
>> > The OS on my machines will not allow a person to run an
>administrative
>> > desktop. It enforces the separation between the administrator
>and a
>> > normal user by requiring the creation of at least one normal
>user at
>> > install. Only that normal user can log in.
>
>On Friday 28 August 2009 09:30:26 Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
>> Oh, now that's cool.  I didn't know that.  The "force to create
>a normal
>> user and only use that" was not something I was aware of.
>>
>> What's the OS?  So, even if you wanted to, you couldn't log on
>as
>> administrator and just do whatever you needed to?  I'm not sure
>if I like
>> that, but I assume this is customizable behavior, yes?
>
>The OS is Debian Linux. Virtually all behavior in Debian is
>customizable, but
>you would have to look look long and hard to find a Debian user
>who would
>want to allow logging into an administrative desktop. You may
>become
>administrator in a terminal or shell. All administrative tasks can
>be run
>from the shell (sometimes called the command line in Windows) in
>Linux. On a
>graphical desktop, programs may be run as administrator; they
>provide a login
>prompt before the program will execute. Programs relying on the X
>server
>(that's the underpinning for the graphical interface) cannot be
>launched from
>an administrative shell by default. At the very least, remote
>administrators
>are blocked from doing that.
>
>Finer controls are available for normal users. Linux (and other
>Unixes, I
>assume) assigns users to groups with names like cd-rom, tape,
>sudo, and
>backup. Assigning a normal user to these groups allows limited
>extra rights.
>I understand Windows also has similar fine grained controls. My
>point is that
>at least some Linux distributions lock things down more by
>default. The major
>distributions all do. That's a good thing. That makes the OS a
>more hostile
>malware environment by default. That and the more diverse
>environment that
>Linux presents, means that Linux desktop users will probably never
>have to
>worry much about malware infections.
>
>One distribution catering to Windows users (initially called
>Lindows, then
>Linspire) set their distribution up the Windows way (making the
>administrator
>the default user). They caught hell for it. Mercifully, they are
>defunct.
>
> A lot of productivity and game software
>required
>being an administrator to run. Back in my Windows 2000 days that
>was a huge
>problem. I don't know if the problem remains today, but I ran
>across it with
>a multi-platform program called RawTherapee under Linux. It writes
>its
>configuration files where it's installed, not to the user's
>configuration
>area. That means running it as an administrator, or installing it
>to one's
>home directory (the Windows equivalent is "Documents and
>settings"). Not
>good, especially if you set the home directory to refuse all
>executable
>files. Clearly the author of the software used Windows first, and
>assumed
>that all users would run as administrator.
>
>> Absolutely - and I learned something about other default options
>on other
>> OS's too ;)
>
>Now if we can only teach people that there is no fortune to be
>made off the
>transfer of funds of defunct African dictators. Piece of cake. ;)

<snip>
 Microsoft's defaults created an environment where software houses
assumed you
ran with full privileges.
</snip>

Sadly, this still holds quite true. I can think of one accounting
package that I had to deal with recently, wasted an entire day with
ProcessExplorer on that crap, and my favorite was the very clued
"Whats the problem? All of our clients run this with administrative
privileges!" from the consultant/var. I'm sure they do...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 3.0

wpwEAQECAAYFAkqaLtkACgkQi04xwClgpZgDjgP/VTdI0m/GVkn1pP2/rJLHoQmZNHoZ
K6CBSdqyF6WMuKdKWFOWrqSbt9rZkkeWpfohhhgiGXURUzYvb1etC5LOf5BjfcgZP0ra
w1M9fOBu14IRn91SYRI6bXbkI3XaB+UxNAkQiIt3wJYVmPqzPJManxHqKZ6RRVNiwePi
bU9gEK4=
=7umV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]