- To: Sridhar Dhanapalan <sridhar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] sudo vs su [WAS: Re: Lindows experience]
- From: Matt Hope <matt.hope@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:48:32 +1000
- Cc: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EkMxudj5xfpIPI4mEtwNbSwZFBEg/e2cS+5aXFqQ6rm0OQNoBySg3UT+mc5xm+GRaU+4gSTO18OnwE8LrLuzYBEFeojbX9k38sRCj/TvP4G5X8UIqI8HzHtKO8BByoTJjL1+aPpvMCE3+sT0uJGLC+uXbl8Jf9OZ8xgsIEiB8Kc=
On 8/20/05, Sridhar Dhanapalan <sridhar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Does anyone have any information I can say in support of an Ubuntu-style sudo
> over standard su?
>From my experence, there are all kinds of advantages to using sudo over su
- Auditability (commands are (by default) logged to syslog)
- 'sudoedit' <- *very* useful tool
- No need for a shared admin password
The following paper (that I happened to be reading earlier today)
mentions these points, and why it was more appropriate for their site
- and why they disabled 'su' from users:
http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2004-12/pdfs/singer.pdf
HTH.
SLUG Mailing List Archives