Originally Posted by
protogenesis
Right, I'm aware that root is disabled/no password. The reason behind this is that 'root' is known as, well, the 'root' account on all POSIX-compliant systems. My suggestion was, if you absolutely *need* a root account, you could create another account with a different name but a UID/GID 0, one that someone trying to 'hack' your system wouldn't know.
Case in point: I set up Ubuntu server about three weeks ago. Within the first 24 hours, someone from China spent about ninety minutes trying to SSH to my machine (which tye could) and guess the root password. They never did breach the system as root has no password.
Granted, I agree with this logic: no password for root!
My argument is that if you NEED a root account, you could create one with a different username but UID/GID 0. Leave root there, no password, but give the new 'root' account a password. I do not advocate this as secure, but consider the sudo command and what it allows. If you argue that you should use sudo, what would the logic be? Using your own account name, one that someone wouldn't be able to guess in a 'hack' attempt? All someone has to do is guess your username, guess the password and they'll be able to 'sudo' until their heart's content. What is the difference between cracking a priveleged /etc/sudoer account versus a UID/GID 0 account with a name that isn't 'root?' In either case, a cracker only needs to guess the password of the account in question and boom, compromised system.
Thoughts on this?
Bookmarks