had given root to a bad shell path;
> at which time I also realized I hadn't given toor a pw.
The toor account will be locked until put into use, so no
security risk.
> > Maybe without rebooting you can do this: Enter "su -m" (if your
> > non-root user is al
Thanks, all.
On 09/26/12 19:18, Polytropon wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:06:18 -0600, Gary Aitken wrote:
>> I mistakenly changed the root shell to something which doesn't exist.
>> Was trying to make it bash and used /bin/bash instead of /usr/local/bin/bash.
>
> A ty
>>> On 9/26/2012 9:06 PM, Gary Aitken wrote:
Probably not. Just boot a livecd that supports your HBA and FS, mount
your Root FS, and:
# vipwd -d /mnt/rootfs
or mount /usr as well and:
# chroot /mnt/rootfs usermod -s /usr/local/bin/bash root
guidance?
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:06:18 -0600, Gary Aitken wrote:
> I mistakenly changed the root shell to something which doesn't exist.
> Was trying to make it bash and used /bin/bash instead of /usr/local/bin/bash.
A typical Linuxism. :-)
> As a consequence, all login attempts fail bec
On Sep 26, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Gary Aitken wrote:
> I mistakenly changed the root shell to something which doesn't exist.
> Was trying to make it bash and used /bin/bash instead of /usr/local/bin/bash.
> As a consequence, all login attempts fail because the shell can't be found.
I mistakenly changed the root shell to something which doesn't exist.
Was trying to make it bash and used /bin/bash instead of /usr/local/bin/bash.
As a consequence, all login attempts fail because the shell can't be found.
Unfortunatley, I shut down the session in which I modified /
WITH_STATIC_BASH PREFIX=/
(or PREFIX=/opt or PREFIX=/static or whatever, just as long as it resides on
the root partition).
If something isn't working that should work (f.e. rc.d scripts), it's easy to
chsh -s /bin/csh, relog and see if it works then. I've seen one case where a
st
nux users) aren't aware of the implications of dynamic linking
> and such. So it's probably best to 'just say no' to the OP's question. Leave
> root's shell alone unless you know what you're doing and bash is built
> appropriately.
Well put.
jerry
OP's question. Leave
root's shell alone unless you know what you're doing and bash is built
appropriately.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Root-shell-tp22274005p22293187.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
prefixing commands with "sudo"
seems to be okay for most tasks.
And as you said, Prad, using FreeBSD's su command (su -m) will
usually do just fine.
Another "wisdom" about this topic: "If you see that you're spending
so much time as 'root' that you
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:43:55 +0100, Daniel Lannstrom wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:11:56AM -0500, Glen Barber wrote:
> > This explains one of the reasons not to change root's shell:
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/security.html#TOOR-ACCOUNT
>
> Yes that's exactly what I mean
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 13:51:32 -0500
Jerry McAllister wrote:
> I am not necessarily recommending all this, but it is better tham
> changing the actual root account's shell.
>
besides, you don't really need to, do you?
i just log in with su -m and get to use my own account's aliases etc,
but as root.
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Sniper wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I heard that changing root shell to bash is not good idea, also programing
> in any C shell not applicable. So which shell is the most appropriate for
> root user ?
You can get your tail in a crack if you boot to
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:16:50PM +, Frank Shute wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Sniper wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I heard that changing root shell to bash is not good idea, also programing
> > in any C shell not applicable. So which
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:16:50 +
Frank Shute wrote:
> pdksh is statically linked and I don't know if bash is.
It's a build option.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscr
Why is this not a good idea? The only reason I can think of it that you
want your root shell on the root hard drive. As many system use a
separate partition for /usr and that bash installs to /usr/local/bin per
yes it may be a reason, but there is always /rescue directory.
and - at least me
I heard that changing root shell to bash is not good idea
from whom?
use what you like the most.
, also programing
in any C shell not applicable. So which shell is the most appropriate for
root user ?
anything you like.
___
freebsd-questions
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Daniel Lannstrom wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:11:56AM -0500, Glen Barber wrote:
>> This explains one of the reasons not to change root's shell:
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/security.html#TOOR-ACCOUNT
>
> Yes that's exactly what I meant. Is t
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:11:56AM -0500, Glen Barber wrote:
> This explains one of the reasons not to change root's shell:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/security.html#TOOR-ACCOUNT
Yes that's exactly what I meant. Is there any other reason except for
that? As I see it that problem c
Frank Shute wrote:
I think programming with csh is deprecated nowadays - a shell guru
could tell you if that's true.
Sure csh is deprecated for programming, and has been for a long time[*].
But this is not about shell programming. It's about what interactive shell
root should have. That's a v
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Sniper wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I heard that changing root shell to bash is not good idea, also programing
> in any C shell not applicable. So which shell is the most appropriate for
> root user ?
>
I changed my root shell to pdksh with n
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Daniel Lannstrom wrote:
> Why is this not a good idea? The only reason I can think of it that you
> want your root shell on the root hard drive. As many system use a
> separate partition for /usr and that bash installs to /usr/local/bin per
> default I
Why is this not a good idea? The only reason I can think of it that you
want your root shell on the root hard drive. As many system use a
separate partition for /usr and that bash installs to /usr/local/bin per
default I can see how that can cause troubles. But are there any other
reasons
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Sniper wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I heard that changing root shell to bash is not good idea, also programing
> in any C shell not applicable. So which shell is the most appropriate for
> root user ?
>
/bin/cs
Hi!
I heard that changing root shell to bash is not good idea, also programing
in any C shell not applicable. So which shell is the most appropriate for
root user ?
Regards,
Jurif
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
nd is GNU/Linux. I would prefer using the
> Bash shell, but the default FreeBSD shell for root appears to be the C
> shell:
>
> p3450# echo $SHELL
> /bin/csh
>
>
> I have changed the root shell to Bash on another machine I use as a CVS
> server and haven'
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 08:46:54PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 2:09 PM -0800 1/4/09, David Christensen wrote:
> >
> >I have changed the root shell to Bash on another machine I use as a CVS
> >server and haven't noticed any issues yet, but I've been wonder
At 2:09 PM -0800 1/4/09, David Christensen wrote:
I have changed the root shell to Bash on another machine I use as a CVS
server and haven't noticed any issues yet, but I've been wondering if
I'm setting myself up for problems by doing so.
Does anybody know if it's oka
t;
> Most of my software background is GNU/Linux. I would prefer using the
> Bash shell, but the default FreeBSD shell for root appears to be the C
> shell:
>
> p3450# echo $SHELL
> /bin/csh
>
>
> I have changed the root shell to Bash on another machine I use a
org/portoverview.py?category=misc&portname=amanda-server>
>
>
> Most of my software background is GNU/Linux. I would prefer using the
> Bash shell, but the default FreeBSD shell for root appears to be the C
> shell:
>
> p3450# echo $SHELL
>/bin/csh
>
>
> Does anybody know if it's okay to change the root shell?
A topic of debate, but yes it is okay to change the root shell, but
there are some things to know...
Some people fret about the idea that shells like bash are not on the
root partition and are usually dynamically linked to l
for root appears to be the C
shell:
p3450# echo $SHELL
/bin/csh
I have changed the root shell to Bash on another machine I use as a CVS
server and haven't noticed any issues yet, but I've been wondering if
I'm setting myself up for problems by doing so.
Does anybody know if
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:20:32PM +0200, Andreas Davour wrote:
>
> I'm not a csh user, in fact I hate it. Though, I use it as it is out of
> the box for root so I'm reminded I'm not an unpriv user any longer.
>
> That being said I'm getting annoyed by the fa
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:20:32PM +0200, Andreas Davour wrote:
> I'm not a csh user, in fact I hate it. Though, I use it as it is out of
> the box for root so I'm reminded I'm not an unpriv user any longer.
>
> That being said I'm getting annoyed by the fact t
On 07/10/2007, at 12:56 AM, andrew clarke wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 04:54:26AM +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a
statically linked
version then tried to log in with only / mounted. But I was locked
out
because elf.ld.so coul
t; Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On 06/10/2007, at 5:45 AM, RW wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
> > > > >> Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Saturday 06 October 2007 11:56:03 andrew clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 04:54:26AM +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
> > I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
> > linked version then tried to log in with only / mounted. But I was lo
On Friday 05 October 2007 22:51:53 Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
> On 06/10/2007, at 4:59 AM, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-10-06 at 04:54 +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a stati
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 04:54:26AM +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
> I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically linked
> version then tried to log in with only / mounted. But I was locked out
> because elf.ld.so could not be found..
>
> I though elf w
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 05:52
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said 'Who you talkin' to?
You talkin' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't do
nuttin'. I said:
> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:09:46 -0400
> From: Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: BASH as root shell (st
most of the features from csh and
ksh as well as the ability to run
sh scripts. It was built to be POSIX compliant, not built for linux..
But this is all besides the point, I didn't ask
what people think of BASH >.<
I didn't ask how to set it as the root shell, what I asked ab
Am Samstag 06 Oktober 2007 07:25:39 schrieb Old Ranger:
> BASH is not a UNIX shell.
> BASH occurred with Linux then carried over into FreeBSD.
Get your history straight and read up on the heritage of the bash on gnu.org,
please. BEFORE you start making absurd comments like these. (as if the bash
On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 23:25 -0600, Old Ranger wrote:
[...snip...]
> Want the best you can get? Use "tcsh" as a shell and let the linux
^^^
+1
Sincerely,
--
Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This domain(izb.knu.ac.kr) is testing DKIM(RFC4871); f
AM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a
statically linked
I would suggest using bash as your toor shell instead. toor
exist pre
/2007, at 5:45 AM, RW wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
> > > >> Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hello,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
t; > >> Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a
> > >>> statically linked
> > >>
> > >> I would s
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/10/2007, at 5:45 AM, RW wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
> >> Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hel
On 06/10/2007, at 5:45 AM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
linked
I would suggest using bash as your toor shell instead. toor exist
precisely for t
On 06/10/2007, at 4:59 AM, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-06 at 04:54 +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
Hello,
I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
linked
version then tried to log in with only / mounted. But I was locked
out because
elf.ld.so coul
On 06/10/2007, at 5:45 AM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
linked
I would suggest using bash as your toor shell instead. toor exist
precisely for t
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:54:26 +1000
Jerahmy Pocott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
> linked
I would suggest using bash as your toor shell instead. toor exist
precisely for this purpose.
htt
On Sat, 2007-10-06 at 04:54 +1000, Jerahmy Pocott wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
> linked
> version then tried to log in with only / mounted. But I was locked
> out because
> elf.ld.so could not be found..
Hello,
I'm wanting to use BASH as my root shell, so I compiled a statically
linked
version then tried to log in with only / mounted. But I was locked
out because
elf.ld.so could not be found..
I though elf was the native binary format these days? But it needs a
library to
run them?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, RW wrote:
What you shouldn't do is set a shell installed from packages as the root
shell, such as bash.
This has become so what canonized however... there is no problem in
running your chosen shell. If you boot single user it will ask you for a
shell to use. Jus
UUASC (Unix
> >>Users of Association of Southern California)
> >>that changing the root shell in FreeBSD is not advised and I have two
> >>machines up and running and a third on the
> >>way, I have purchased a text from (I don't know if it is appropriate
>
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 03:34, jekillen wrote:
> Hello;
> Since I have been advised by way of correspondence with UUASC (Unix
> Users of Association of Southern California)
> that changing the root shell in FreeBSD is not advised and I have two
> machines up and running and
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:34:09PM -0700, jekillen wrote:
> Hello;
> Since I have been advised by way of correspondence with UUASC (Unix
> Users of Association of Southern California)
> that changing the root shell in FreeBSD is not advised and I have two
> machines up and runn
Hello;
Since I have been advised by way of correspondence with UUASC (Unix
Users of Association of Southern California)
that changing the root shell in FreeBSD is not advised and I have two
machines up and running and a third on the
way, I have purchased a text from (I don't know if
x27;m stuck.
Ctrl-Alt-Backspace restarts X and kdm. I haven't tried it, but I suppose
you could run /usr/local/bin/startkde and see what happens. Or you could
issue a command like this kill -HUP `cat /var/run/kdm.pid`.
2. Is there any way I can shutdown KDE and get back to a root shell? If I
Hi all,
I got two KDE-related newby questions:
1. How do I restart a KDE session after I changed some config files? In
Linux this is
/etc/init.d/kdm restart
But since there is no init.d on FreeBSD, I'm stuck.
2. Is there any way I can shutdown KDE and get back to a root shell?
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 at 9:12:58 -0400, marek wrote:
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 at 9:12:58 -0400, marek wrote:
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 at 9:12:58 -0400, marek wrote:
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 at 9:19:08 -0400, marek wrote:
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 at 9:19:08 -0400, marek wrote:
On Saturd
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
---
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use CGI;
my $query = new CGI;
print $query
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use CGI;
my $query = new CGI;
print $query->header;
print "\n";
print "\n";
print "ntop startup script\n";
print "\n";
print
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
I did:
cp /usr/local/etc/rc.d /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/ntop
cd /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/ntop
chmod 755 ntop.sh
chown www ntop.sh
I've created in in
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
---
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use CGI;
my $query = new CGI;
print $query
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
I did:
cp /usr/local/etc/rc.d /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/ntop
cd /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/ntop
chmod 755 ntop.sh
chown www ntop.sh
I've created in in
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use CGI;
my $query = new CGI;
print $query->header;
print "\n";
print "\n";
print "ntop startup script\n";
print "\n";
print
hi
I have freebsd 5.4 and need sudo for www (apache) user
to run a startup root script ntop.sh from cgi-bin directory via browser using a
per script:
---
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use CGI;
my $query = new CGI;
print $query
shell
(as defined by getusershell(3)) and the caller's real
uid is non-
zero, su will fail.
But otherwise, yours would be the right answer, I believe.
Mark
--
On 20 Dec 2003 at 23:32, Scott I. Remick wrote:
{Re: bad root shell...}:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:44:17 -0800, M
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:44:17 -0800, Mark McConnell wrote:
> An error in a pw* script inserted a non-existent shell into the password
> database, effectively locking out root.
>
> I used a fixit disk to correct the problem, using this procedure:
Unless I'm missing something, seems like the long w
On Sat, 2003-12-20 at 12:44, Mark McConnell wrote:
> An error in a pw* script inserted a non-existent shell into the
> password database, effectively locking out root.
>
> I used a fixit disk to correct the problem, using this procedure:
>
> 1. mount boot drive to /mnt
>
> 2. provide myself wit
An error in a pw* script inserted a non-existent shell into the
password database, effectively locking out root.
I used a fixit disk to correct the problem, using this procedure:
1. mount boot drive to /mnt
2. provide myself with a working mkdb and vi (for chpass):
# mkdir /usr/sbin /usr/bin
#
> > I have been using bash for root shell some time now without noticing
>> any problems. My bash is statically linked and I have moved it to
>> /bin.
>>
>> What kind of problems should I expect?
>
> in this case probably none. the warning (sh|c)ould b
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-10-10 16:06:26 +0300:
> > Also, never change the shell for root. It needs to be as it is for
> > some things to work right.
>
> I have been using bash for root shell some time now without noticing
> any problems. My bash is statically linked a
>Also, never change the shell for root. It needs to be as it is for some
>things to work right.
I have been using bash for root shell some time now without noticing
any problems. My bash is statically linked and I have moved it to
/bin.
What kind of problems should I expect?
I even tr
75 matches
Mail list logo
