On Thursday 29 July 2010 11:25:51 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > On Qui, 29 Jul 2010, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote: > > I understand your issues with all but the last one. A user may need to > > "sudo su" due to configuration outside of their control. A system that > > requires you > > to "sudo su" for some task is likely misconfigured, but it is a > > useful tool to > > have around, as a user. > > sudo -i
You can configure sudo to disallow opening a shell directly with the "-i" and "-s" options. That is why I indicated that "sudo su" would only be required with a mis-configured sudo installation. (If policy allows you to run "su" [or any shell] directly, then the "-s" and "-i" options should be allowed, as well.) Nitpick: (sudo su) is roughly equivalent to (sudo -s); (sudo -i) is roughly equivalent to (sudo su -). -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
