Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

retrocomputing.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#141

Post by pid1wow »

throw0101d wrote: post #22
pram wrote: post #3

It’s a funny artifact because most people today use, and have only used Linux in a “single user” context. The “local system administrator” is me!

> It’s a funny artifact because most people today use, and have only used Linux in a “single user” context. The “local system administrator” is me! Except if you're on a team of sysadmins running a fleet of systems, either a whole bunch of cattle and/or numerous pets. There are numerous occasions that I have to SSH to look at something on an individual system, and it's best practice to go in as yourself and then sudo…

What is (theoretically, or practically) being achieved by running sudo instead of just logging in as root? Can you give an example that justifies typing your password up to hundreds of times per day coupled with deliberate hashing delays?

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#142

Post by kube-system »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #140
vasco wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as useful as people that say they are not lawyers when commenting online.

Or my personal favorite, people who upload videos to youtube with the disclaimer "I don't own this video". I have no idea how that meme took hold, or how those people don't realize that it makes it worse for you if you admit to knowingly infringing copyright.

It is the mistaken belief that copyright simply protects the author's credit or attribution. Likely by people who drew their entire understanding of copyright from their schoolteachers' disapproval of plagiarism.

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#143

Post by amalcon »

culi wrote: post #127
amalcon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL, this was my first time seeing the term. I just assumed that the poster had left out the second word of "bush league". That would mean something similar but subtly different, though (a lawyer not up to professional standards).

I'd imagine both terms are derogatory, no? "Bush" is usually a derogitroy descriptor of aboriginal peoples as "primitive" or "unsophisticated"

The subtle difference is not that one is neutral. It's that "bush league lawyer" is a bad lawyer, but "bush lawyer" can be either that or someone attempting to act as a lawyer without actually being one.

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#144

Post by kube-system »

hunter2_ wrote: post #133
bubblethink wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the US is the main country that loves these messages. Have you seen the size of universities or the government ? It's just clerical staff doing make believe work. Go to any .gov website. They'll throw up a wall of bs before you log in (e.g., https://ttp.dhs.gov/ ).

But it seems unnecessary given the existence of its laws. For example, CFAA makes unauthorized use of a computer system illegal regardless of whether the system communicates it. Perhaps these messages originated prior to the CFAA, in which case perhaps they were necessary back then, and nobody has dared to remove them. This is unlike trespassing in the US, however, which does require informing the person (written in…

There are other legitimate reasons:

1. contractual obligations, with a lower burden of proof than criminal cases, and different remedies

2. helpful reminders

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#145

Post by throw0101d »

pid1wow wrote: post #141
throw0101d wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a funny artifact because most people today use, and have only used Linux in a “single user” context. The “local system administrator” is me! Except if you're on a team of sysadmins running a fleet of systems, either a whole bunch of cattle and/or numerous pets. There are numerous occasions that I have to SSH to look at something on an individual system, and it's best practice to go in as yourself and then sudo…

What is (theoretically, or practically) being achieved by running sudo instead of just logging in as root? Can you give an example that justifies typing your password up to hundreds of times per day coupled with deliberate hashing delays?

> What is (theoretically, or practically) being achieved by running sudo instead of just logging in as root?

Auditing.

> Can you give an example that justifies typing your password up to hundreds of times per day coupled with deliberate hashing delays?

1. I don't do that hundreds of times per day because the stuff I run generally runs pretty well.

2. sudo has password caching, so only the first execution needs a password.

3. If I'm doing a lot, I may sudo-to-root: auditing can still see me going in and becoming root, so it can be determined that I did stuff.

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#146

Post by kube-system »

pram wrote: post #3

It’s a funny artifact because most people today use, and have only used Linux in a “single user” context. The “local system administrator” is me!

The vast majority of linux users use linux on a phone and have never opened a terminal. Most people who use 'sudo' in a terminal are professionals or academics who commonly do or have used linux in a multi-user environment.

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#147

Post by throw0101d »

thousand_nights wrote: post #25
throw0101d wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a funny artifact because most people today use, and have only used Linux in a “single user” context. The “local system administrator” is me! Except if you're on a team of sysadmins running a fleet of systems, either a whole bunch of cattle and/or numerous pets. There are numerous occasions that I have to SSH to look at something on an individual system, and it's best practice to go in as yourself and then sudo…

> Except if you're on a team of sysadmins running a fleet of systems not trying to be rude but this doesn't sound like "most people"

>> Except if you're on a team of sysadmins running a fleet of systems

> not trying to be rude but this doesn't sound like "most people"

Sure. But sudo still serves a purpose for those folks.

I also use sudo on my macOS system(s) (e.g., MacPorts).

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#148

Post by Suppafly »

ggm wrote: post #16

Back in the 90s we were told ostentatiously to include "unauthorised access is not permitted" to the login prompt. Why? Because the login prompt said "please login:" and this was being read by some bush lawyer as an invitation to connect, and therefore would impede a case if we had a hacker login with a stolen password. I think it was founded on urban myth, but I assure you this is what we were told to do: add text t…

Reminds me of those signs on the interstate pass throughs that connect one side to the other, that cops often sit on. The sign says something like "authorized vehicles only" because presumably every one needing to turn around would use them to u-turn on the interstate, which is likely considered to not be safe. I used one to turn around one time and when called out by my kid, I assured him that I was authorized. I have no idea who is actually authorized to use those, outside of emergency vehicles.

Re: When was the famous "sudo warning" introduced? (2019)

#150

Post by Suppafly »

Algent wrote: post #92
ggm wrote: post #16

Back in the 90s we were told ostentatiously to include "unauthorised access is not permitted" to the login prompt. Why? Because the login prompt said "please login:" and this was being read by some bush lawyer as an invitation to connect, and therefore would impede a case if we had a hacker login with a stolen password. I think it was founded on urban myth, but I assure you this is what we were told to do: add text t…

This is like the warning in emails about "not reading it if you aren't supposed to have received it" like yeah sure how do you know it's not for you then.

Until someone can provide a link to an actual case where that's mattered, I refuse to believe that those have any real legal power.
Post reply on HN