search for: beatlebailey

...8:23AM -0800, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > > > One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known > > point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called > > root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge? > > That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's > labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out > of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is > given full sudo access,...

...omehow improves security is, in my opinion, self-defeating. It is certainly a deceit. Whether it is self-delusion or overt pretence I have no idea. One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge? If brute forcing passwords is the problem then why not make it ever more difficult by forcing crackers to guess what the superuser name is to begin with? Oh, I know. Too much software exists that presumes that the superuser name is root. Evidently adherence to that conv...

On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known > point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called > root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge? That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is given full sudo access, and can choose to grant s...

...Keller wrote: >> On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> > >> > One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known >> > point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called >> > root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge? >> >> That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's >> labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out >> of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is >> given...

On Wed, February 4, 2015 10:18 am, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge? > > That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is given full sudo access, and can choose t...