Slashdot Mirror
Michael Robertson Says Root is Safe
Kez writes "HEXUS.net caught up with Michael Robertson, CEO of Linspire, at the UK launch of Linspire 5. Their interview with Mr. Robertson covers everything from hardware support to software patents, but a comment from Mr. Robertson on using root is perhaps the most interesting: "I defy anybody to tell me why is it more secure to not run as root. Nobody really has a good answer. They say 'oh, yeah, it is!', but it really isn't." I would imagine a few Slashdotters would dispute that."
- Any exploitable program you run as another user will still need a local escilation exploit in order to do anything harmful. Running something like apache as root, and any vulnerability in programs such as phpMyAdmin will make your whole server go poof.
- rm -Rf / as nonroot will make you give a sigh of relief. As root will be your nightmare.
- ActiveX and a lot of spyware is contained in windows when running as non-administrator. It's running as admin (like most people do), that cause the majority of problems with things.
This kind of talk is pandering to the lowest common denominator of user. Honestly, I feel users SHOULD learn a little bit about privileges before being handed the machine, and clicking on that file attachment.I know Slashdot attempts to soundbite things just like any other modern news media, so I'll quote:
Here's why: What's the most important thing on your desktop? It's the data. If someone gets access to your libraries or whatever, who cares? Your data is the most precious thing on your computer. And whether you log in as root or log in as user, you have access to that data, technically anyone who's compromising your account has access to your data as well.
MySQL, for instance, runs as a separate user. If I so desired, I could limit the login / password for my MySQL account to only allow row INSERTs and SELECTs, but no DELETEs or DROPs. If someone were to break into my account, they could see my data, but at least they couldn't delete from the table. As root, they could stop and start the actual service, and wipe out the whole directory for that matter.
I generally see what he's saying about data being king. But if your data is that important, you'll have other safeguards for protecting it, typically via (dun dun dun), user management! For instance, keep your accounting files under a different user, home directory chmodded to 700. Stuff like that.
Then you could say "Well, it's not really about your data, it's that people could accidentally mess things up!". Well, you could accidentally drive into a wall as well, it doesn't mean we should make all cars drive at 10 miles an hour. So, I don't see the added benefit.
Cars happen to have seat belts. Roads also have speed limits, so this analogy is flawed.
The best way for Linux to break into the market isn't to emulate windows entirely. The best way is to take the best of what windows has to offer, and augment it with the best of what Linux has to offer. After all, look at Firefox. Firefox didn't choose to adopt ActiveX, or adopt Microsoft's proprietary style transitions, or render CSS in the same broken way, right? Neither should Linux, or in this case, Linspire.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Michael: I think, like everything, it's a question of balance. Ease of use, versus security. I defy anybody to tell me why is it more secure to not run as root. Nobody really has a good answer. They say "oh, yeah, it is!", but it really isn't. Here's why: What's the most important thing on your desktop? It's the data. If someone gets access to your libraries or whatever, who cares? Your data is the most precious thing on your computer. And whether you log in as root or log in as user, you have access to that data, technically anyone who's compromising your account has access to your data as well.
Techincally it's gaining control over your system without you knowing it and running exploitable programs as root makes that easier. If the hackers get access to your libraries, programs, etc, they can do far more damage to you by sniffing your data w/o your knowledge. Hackers aren't going to just steal your data and run. If they can gain easy access to the system they are going to modify it and snoop everything and keep getting what they came for.
Michael: Then you could say "Well, it's not really about your data, it's that people could accidentally mess things up!". Well, you could accidentally drive into a wall as well, it doesn't mean we should make all cars drive at 10 miles an hour. So, I don't see the added benefit. I DO see it's an added pain in the ass when grandma tries to change her wallpaper, and it tells her "you don't have root privileges". What are you talking about, man? I'm just trying to use my computer, or change the clock, or any one of a hundred other things. So, people always say "it's less secure", but I defy anyone to point out a single instance, and people all go "Well, I, erm, it's theoretical!". There's no one area I think you can point out - In this instance, a machine that's run with the root user could be compromised, in this instance one couldn't be compromised.
I am in no way a master of Linux/UNIX and I never claimed to be but even I know that if you are exploited while running something as root more damage can be done to a lot more services, files, etc, than if you were just running it as a user. It's not theoretical. It's fucking very real and it's idiots like this guy that make it easier and easier for more zombie boxes to get out there. Look at Windows... Yeah, no, we don't need Linux to end up like that too.
I want to know who the hell this guy is talking to that don't give him a valid argument. I have a feeling they are and he isn't listening.
Michael: I know the hardcore geeks feel differently, that's fine. When somebody installs Linspire, we say "do you want to set up users, yes or no", we give them the choice, right there when they start up for the first time. If they want to set up multiple users, they're welcome to do that, but we don't force them to. That's the difference we have.
It shouldn't even be a choice. Prompt for a password (like OS X) when something that needs root privledges runs. If it has succeeded with the Mac then it can with Linspire users too. If you are so concerned about making the users have a positive Linux experience rewrite the dialog boxes when they ask for "root priveledges" so that they are human readable. Don't just eliminate it and say that there's no valid reason not to. Taking the easy way out doesn't solve the problem.
Since when is Michael Roberson a trusted source? He's an asshole that's just into pushing the envelope and making waves (remember Lindows and MP3.com?) Right now he's doing exactly the same thing. "See, those Linux users are trying to make it hard for the layperson to use "their" OS and I'm trying to make it easy. Listen to me! I'm trustworthy!"
Not running as root works like this. Your data is no more inherently safe than it is when you /are/ running as root, but nobody ELSE'S data will fall prey to your screwup, nor will the central integrity of the system. (For granny, this means that grandson Billy can ssh in, recover this morning's backups from the write-once partition, and she can keep going, having lost minimal data.)
Running as root is like pointing a loaded gun at everyone just in case they're a criminal.
Not running as root is like fastening your seat belt. Sure, you're not intending to get in an accident...
Running as root is like driving down the highway with your hood open and your oil cap off.
Not running as root is like locking your door when you leave.
Running as root is like posting to slashdot without reading TFA. :)
This flies in the face of science.
But I want to know his IP address.
Lets do "rm -rf /" and compare the results.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
While we all want to start lambasting him for his obvious lack of understanding of the obvious, I think it is actually endemic of the real problem.
People do not understand anything about computer security.
They do not understand how to limit exposure.
They do not understand the vectors of software virus infection.
They do not understand the true problems of viral infection (that is: they want to eliminate the side effects, but do not care about the primary problem).
Mocking people for being clueless does not actually make them smarter, nor does it impress them with your 31337 Haxor Skillz.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
I'd like him to run on an account where he's not root, thanks.
In the article, Michael defines security as the (in)ability to access personal data. In that respect, he's probably right. But I think he oversimplifies the real question of allowing the users to run under the one account that could really screw up their machine.
He argues that just because we could possibly drive our cars into brick walls doesn't mean we should all be limited to driving at 10 mph. I don't believe the likelihood of even the least skilled driver actually ramming into a brick wall is quite as much as my grandma's likelihood of completely screwing up her computer were she granted root access. I've seen her mess up her Windows machine pretty nicely.
http://nerdfortress.com/
This is exactly the kind of attitude that I'd expect from someone that learned everything they know about computers from working with MS-DOS... he can't seem to conceive of the notion that there might be more than one person's data on a single machine!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Why is it more secure not to run as root?
500,000 Windows zombies should be the only answer you need.
include $sig;
1;
One word: Spyware. You run as Administrator, it hoses your machine. If developers would actually write software so that users didn't have to run as Admin just to open up notepad, then spyware wouldn't be anywhere near as big a problem as it is right now.
.jpg .doc and .mp3 files.
Now take that one step further and consider a malicious virus being accidentally executed by the same user that thought Bonzi Buddy was cute. Spyware is bad, but that virus might, oh... kill all your
Now how do you feel about running as Administrator?
I have to say I love the OSX solution. For those of you that aren't familiar:
The method:
By default you don't use root (although it does exist)
By default a user may or may not be an "admin" user. An admin user may perform root-like operations by authenticating again, but they give their own same password to the OS to do things.
It still knows you're you, you're just super-you. So default files are created with you as owner, for instance. This is safer because it reduces slightly the number of escalations necessary.
The effects:
The actual user password being compromised is not the reason you need a separate root account, so they removed your need for two passwords.
Bad apps still need separate priv escalation to do any harm, even if you're running as admin.
BUT you don't have to logout of your GUI session to have one app - or even ONE PART of one app - run with escalated privledges, if you authorize it to.
This means you have NO REASON to ever run unnecessary apps as an admin. No downloading just that one file as root because you're in the middle of doing a rooty thing and forgot one.
The similar linux hack:
I know you can setup similar things with sudo and a little tweaking. But this is how every OSX box ships, and it ought to be how every GUI consumer linux box ships too.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
We all know the reasons not to run anything as root unneccesarily are many, but you have to think from his perspective as well. He's picturing clueless linux desktop users, using a shrinkwrapped distro at home for personal use. If they were to only log in as a user rather than root, what does it buy them? Whoever gets them to run malicious code by exploiting them or their software will still get access to all of their data, since it was all stored as that user. And they still get access to backdoor all of the software they use, since they can screw the user's environment (PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc).
About the only thing not running as root saves the poor nontechnical home end-user from is wiping out their hard drive, but all the data that's important to them contained therein is still destructable.
His point is in fact arguable - why bother?
11*43+456^2
Running as root is dangerous, but is more dangerous than the average home user is used to? Probably not. The average user probably runs windows from a single user account with admin rights. For most people, the recycle bin is the only protection from stupid mistakes.
... he should rename his Linspire to something like Lindows.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
OK, I'll bite.
Keeping in mind Linspire is totally Desktop-centric, I can see why they might have a radically different view on the permissions system from most existing Linux users.
I've already read lots of lengthy posts trashing this contrarian point of view. And they have a lot of good points, as yours does, but ultimately this reads like a single-user vs. multi-user culture clash.
The fact is that on any operating system when you have a single, important user who runs malicious code, it doesn't matter much whether they're root or not, unless the machine has a security model more fine-grained and well-integrated than anything currently in wide use.
If that user can access their own files, then their own files can be destroyed. If that user can access the internet, then the compromise can also send their files over it. Or it can simply make them a spam bot. Or a relay. If that user has an address book, then its contents can be targets for viral propagation. And so on, and so forth.
Frankly, to do most things attackers want to do, "root" is unnecessary. Nothing within the unix "user management" repertoire really lets you deal effectively with this problem, and what few solutions you do have are, let's be honest, ugly, cumbersome, evil hacks.
What stops all this? A real, heretofore unknown high-level security model, that actually says "The email program can access stored email data, preferences, and can talk to the network on this port, to these hosts" and "the word processor cannot talk IRC" and so forth. This requires a rich resource model, rethinking data storage metaphors, the whole nine yards. Unix does not have this. Windows hosts only have it in the crudest and most limited form with "personal firewalls" that to some extent at least police the network activities of applications.
So for all the Unix folks, of course, this disdain for the security model is heresy, but for the desktop world (and really, servers benefit greatly from a fresh perspective as well), it's not such a bad point. Unix lacks a security model rich enough to be truly useful to everyday users, and by extension, companies like Linspire that cater to them.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
How could open source applications support ActiveX? The WHOLE point of ActiveX was to add a proprietary MS extension to the web to keep companies like yours locked in.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
127.0.0.1.
Just don't tell anyone that it was me who told you.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
"How could open source applications support ActiveX?"
Ask these guys.
BTW, you REALLY don't understand what ActiveX is. Heh. Non-MS products can open ActiveX plugins.
"Derp de derp."
Refusal to support one of the biggest vectors of spyware infiltration is not arrogant, it is common sense, at least for the average desktop user.
For the business world, admittedly, with the entrenched position of ActiveX-based systems on corporate intranets, it's perhaps a little silly and a bit of a barrier to business adoption, but for home users one of the biggest complaints about Windows is the fact their machine can be 0wned by Virtual Bouncer, CoolWebSearch, ABetterInternet and God knows how many other drive-by-installed apps and toolbars just by visiting a slightly wrong-side-of-the-tracks website.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Since a decent majority of open source developers actually give, to use your phrase, a flying fuck about standards, it's generally not in their best interests to promote use of something that isn't a standard, will never be a standard and would be completely undesirable as a standard. Additionally, if it can't be ported across architectures then including it would do a hell of a lot of damage to firefox's geek cred, and hence developer base.
Having said that, I think a plugin that allowed you to use activeX is a cool idea. I just don't think that tying the browser down to any one platform is a great idea. If you're particularly keen to produce an ActiveX version, go fork the codebase.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Okay, I will make it easy for you. Why does Firefox and OpenOffice not use ActiveX? Heres why:
s ho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=1207754 3
(1) It does not work cross-platform. Both Firefox and OpenOffice work on platforms other than Windows. Both platforms keep this compatibility by not introducin technology that could possibly limit this capability.
(2) It is proprietary. You may be confused on what this means. Basically, the technology is owned by Microsoft. This very same reason is why PNG exists despite the existance of GIFs. GIF technology was proprietary and, thus, could not be placed into a product that had a open source license (Linux).
(3) Firefox has no need for ActiveX since it has, in my opinion, a better technology with XPCOM. OpenOffice, if I remember, can be extended with Java plugins. Java has built-in security unlike ActiveX. Both XPCOM and Java are cross-platform which goes back to my point #1.
(4) Active X is not very secure. You will hear this time and time again. Microsoft even knows this and turned them off by default in SP2!
Make all the excuses you want, at the end of the day what matters is if the product does what it needs to or not.
As stated in point #3 above both Firefox and OpenOffice support technologies that give them quite a bit of power to get any job done.
I have a pretty good memory and I remember correcting you on these issues before:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144131&thre
Before you go spouting about some guy who would have no job if it werent for ActiveX or some other non-sense drivel, answer this:
What does ActiveX do that XPCOM and Java are incapable of performing?
If you are not able to answer that question, you have no base to stand on.
Fine. But FireFox (and others, such as Mac's Safari) support something highly worthwhile that IE most definitely does not. Namely, a reasonably safe and secure browsing experience.
Some markets will opt for security and safety, using technologies that are (compared to active x) much (duh) safer and more secure.
Others will continue to endure spyware, viri, adware and various trojans and other invasive garbage. Those are "IE features" FireFox doesn't want to offer. Or let me put it this way -- they are "features" that this FF user doesn't want to be "given", because they are inevitably prefaced with the command "bend over."
I truly think that to impress ActiveX upon FireFox would be just about the worst thing the FF developers could do. FireFox provides a better experience. That's why it's doing so amazingly well. Put ActiveX in there, and that experience is going to begin to degrade. It may go as far as to be as risky to surf with FF as it is to surf with with IE.
Does anyone really want that, other than the companies who have embraced and extended Microsoft's Active-X? Is there anything truly significant you can do with Active-X that you cannot also do with Java?
Sure... you pick a technology that is proprietary to one browser, that browser starts to lose favor with the user community, and definitely, you will have work to do. Time to start studying Java. It's not time for the junk technology to be imported into FF to extend the EOL of some Active-X product.
Java was designed to be secure. It's been remarkably successful at it, too.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There is an issue you've not addressed. How about when your data is not the target? (Honestly, most people's data is not worth stealing).
What if an attacker just wishes to compromise your machine and use it to attack other machines, relay spam, etc? This is a huge problem with Windows.
"That's some catch, that Catch 22." "It's the best there is."
Fine.
However, the next implication is that it can be turned on. This is not fine. Why? Because it is dangerous. The average user does not comprehend that it is dangerous. Like the argument here that one should not run as root (which I agree with for most people in most situations) the idea is that if you're not smart enough to handle a tool, you should not be handed that tool.
It's not arrogance to say that it is not a happy worldview to see people's computers being trashed by junkware let in by badly designed software -- Active-X -- it simply isn't a good thing. You can't make it a good thing.
Now, if a company has invested time in developing for this proprietary (but very dangerous) technology, and the marketplace leaves them behind, as it is showing definite signs of doing, then if that company wants to survive, it needs to lose the dangerous technology, get with the program, and use the safe technology. That's called evolutionary pressure. I'm part of that pressure. I don't use IE. If you use IE-specific technologies on your site, you've lost me (and at least 10% of the rest of the world, and more every day.) Now, you can only ignore this for so long before you (a) solve the problem by losing the junkware, or (b) are driven from the business space by competitors who are able to recognize and resolve the problem.
From a user perspective, I'm just one guy. I won't use IE.
From an applications standpoint, I own several companies and we don't use Active-X (or Java, for that matter) as a matter of course. We do server-side apps, because (a) we have total control over them and (b) because all users, that's 100% of them, can use our apps. We give up some glitz, certainly, but we've never, ever had to give up anything important.
So my outlook does have some effect. If Active-X were to go away, it wouldn't touch me at all, other than to make the web more accessible to me and perhaps give my competitors a more stable place to stand. Do I worry about the people who invested in Active-X? No. And, really -- why should I?
Arrogant? No. I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are entitled to yours. As for putting any thought into it, apparently you didn't notice my sig. This isn't an issue I just picked up on this afternoon. I have indeed thought about it, and this is where I ended up.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Good post overall. However, you're simplifying the relationship between GIF and PNG, and you imply that by including proprietary renderers in Linux that they too must be open source. This is completely incorrect, as many binary drivers, patent-encumbered applications, and even closed applications are distributed with Linux. Debian has an open-only policy, but that reflects their outlook, not a requirement of the Open Source license.
PNG was developed not because it was impossible to put GIF support in Linux, but because it was feared that Compuserve (which discovered it held a patent on one of the processes used in GIF compression / decompression) would abuse it's power on all platforms. In the early days, they talked about levying a fee on all clients, users... anything that interacted with GIFs. At which point development of PNG began. I believe CompuServe finally settled on the less unreasonable 5c per paid application that can encode GIF's, with no fee for decoders. That fee is no longer with us, as the patent has expired.
On the other hand, PNG has surpassed GIF's by adding alpha layer transparency... in other words, you can have certain pixels that are 100% opaque, or 10%, or 55% solid, or whatever. This would make working with images on the WWW so much easier, if MS would just bloody well implement proper PNG support like they promised as a feature for I.E. 4.
What does ActiveX do that XPCOM and Java are incapable of performing?
Install very convienient password management apps, automatically, like Gator.
The ______ Agenda
What does ActiveX do that XPCOM and Java are incapable of performing?
I think the correct answer is marketing. The gecko browsers are packed full of some really cool toys for developers. But it's very very hard to sort through it all. Every so often I start playing with various features common to Mozillaish browsers like XPI, XSLT, and Javascript. It always strikes me how much potential there is to make some very cool applications using these. One pet project of mine is to see if I could create a set of XSLT documents that would transform glade projects into XUL applications, which could be themed via css.
It's coming along pretty well, but I find it very difficult to wade through the developer documentation. XULplanet is a great resource, and there's a few others like the DOM ref on moz.org, but it seems pretty scattered, and sometimes out dated, and sometimes it just completely disappears like DevEdge (which there was some talk about being resurrected). In some cases, the only reliable documentation is the moz source itself, which is very hard to navigate without a fair bit of research.
I've never done anything with ActiveX at all, or dealt with Microsoft API's very often at all, but I've seen their documentation, and it seems like its quite a bit more focused, and easy to find things.
Having had to go looking for documentation myself, I think I can see why companies would be reluctant to use Mozilla technologies in house. Is there anybody at the Mozilla foundation that deals strictly with promoting moz as a developer platform, rather than focusing on the browser itself?
as per this comment below (just bringing it up to make it more obvious). chmod a-x /home keeps you from doing anything in /home or any subdirectory, but will let you list /home; chmod a-r /home keeps you from listing /home but will let you do stuff in /home/bob.
It's been stated repeatedly that Mozilla.org products will never implement ActiveX out of the box... ever...
There are extensions, if there weren't you could develop them, it's up to you to implement ActiveX in moz/fox and degrade your security, but THAT won't come from the foundation.
Try again.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler