undefined | Better HN

0 pointstetris111y ago0 comments

So with termux there is an actual root password set, but it differs from the phone password so it's often forgotten.

The termux developers, knowing this, set it such that the default termix user can invoke sudo without a password.

It might seem lazy, but its very useful

0 comments

I am not sure how passwords are relevant to the pointless chaining of two distinct commands, rather than invoking a straightforward "sudo -s".

People writing "sudo su" are simply imitating a common StackExchange idiom without knowing why.

"su" requires passwords unless invoked by root. "sudo" may be configured to permit/deny specific commands. So if you write that, then you're saying 'become root via the sudoers(5) config and then fork, exec, become root again via the setuid binary "su", in order to run an interactive shell.'

It's a poor habit to be promoting, because it assumes things about the configuration and suggests that "su" is equal to other particular "sudo" maintenance commands, when the point is simply to drop into a root shell, which is a facility provided directly by "sudo", if you'd only read the manual page and learn its options.

Nothing will stop you from invoking "sudo -s" without a password, without another fork/exec, without another suid utility carrying a significantly different authentication model.

tetris11OP1y ago

Doesn't "sudo -s" keep the current user's environment variables as opposed to "sudo su"?

I admit that in the context of doing "ls /sys/module" it's likely not a huge problem, but I do (in my gut) feel that for running an elevated command, it's cleaner to just drop in as actual root, instead of masquerading as root.

AStonesThrow1y ago

> if you'd only read the manual page and learn its options.

tetris11OP1y ago

> Depending on the security policy, the user's PATH environment variable may be modified, replaced, or passed unchanged to the program that sudo executes.

Essentially a "maybe, depending on what your OS policy is", proving that your comments are less than helpful.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

AStonesThrow1y ago

I am not sure how passwords are relevant to the pointless chaining of two distinct commands, rather than invoking a straightforward "sudo -s".

People writing "sudo su" are simply imitating a common StackExchange idiom without knowing why.

Nothing will stop you from invoking "sudo -s" without a password, without another fork/exec, without another suid utility carrying a significantly different authentication model.

tetris11OP1y ago

Doesn't "sudo -s" keep the current user's environment variables as opposed to "sudo su"?

AStonesThrow1y ago

> if you'd only read the manual page and learn its options.

tetris11OP1y ago

> Depending on the security policy, the user's PATH environment variable may be modified, replaced, or passed unchanged to the program that sudo executes.

Essentially a "maybe, depending on what your OS policy is", proving that your comments are less than helpful.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse