Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Bad idea and bad security. Security thru obscurity just doesn't always work.
Why not setup sudo or su when needed? When my machine is all set and done with configuration, I rarely ever need to be root on my machines, there is just no need really.
good question i know id like to have another name for my root usuer (root jsut dont sound good to me) --and to ur comet about security thru obsucrity dont work, well thats say tehres a casle on a grassland, very strong and what not but sence its all open in view some people world probly defidfently try to break it down, but now if that casle was comelfraled less people would see it to attack,, point being security by obscurity is a good idea as long as it dont make the system less secure, or have a bad preformance cost))
Originally posted by SciYro good question i know id like to have another name for my root usuer (root jsut dont sound good to me) --and to ur comet about security thru obsucrity dont work, well thats say tehres a casle on a grassland, very strong and what not but sence its all open in view some people world probly defidfently try to break it down, but now if that casle was comelfraled less people would see it to attack,, point being security by obscurity is a good idea as long as it dont make the system less secure, or have a bad preformance cost))
Well along with having another user with root's privileges comes more security risks. Try searching our forums, this is brought up many times and there are some good threads discussing why this is not a good idea, even looking at the threads in which members are asking if they should just login as root all the time, etc.
But no, to me, security thru obscurity is not a good idea, cause its not truly securing your machine, network, etc. The best way to secure your machine/network, etc is to do it the right way and not faking that its secure.
If running as root is your thing, perhaps you want to check into Lindows?
Having 2 root users is just plain silly. If someone is trusted enough to use root, they should use root. I guess it's too bad if you don't like the name.
Good Luck.
But I guess if you set its uid (user id) to 0 it will have root privilege... as all access is control by user id and not user names.
But I would not do that...
for the reasons stated above...
Specify the tasks that needs to be done by that user and people will answer the more convienent way to do it without bringing your system as insecure as Win95.
ok well is ther a way to change teh root ussers name tho not have 2 root users but just rename teh root user to god or somthing whowever u want to call it
i just ask you about how to do that..i'm not in network now ..but i just want to know how... iTux ..your way work just with redhat 7.3 but not with redhat 9 i tried it and is not work at all.
Originally posted by SciYro ok well is ther a way to change teh root ussers name tho not have 2 root users but just rename teh root user to god or somthing whowever u want to call it
That to me is still considered Security thru Obscurity, still doesn't make any more sense to do from just creating another superuser/root user. I'd rather create the other superuser before trying to just rename root to another name to try and throw potential crackers off...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.