|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Unix vs Dos for Virus Content
|
> also sprach Michael Leone (on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:05:27AM -0500):
> > > - security: windoze has no security.
> >
> > Not quite. Win9X/WinMe don't, you're right about that. NT does; Win2K is
> > much better and more Unix-like in that regard (they even have a "run as"
> > command - you know, a Win equivalent of "sudo")
>
> okay, i have been an NT user for the longest time and have beta tested
> 2000. however, besides my general urge to play around with a system, i
> found it impossible to use a workstation appropriately without being
> the administrator. i know that's against the policy, but i trusted
> myself well enough to do so. the point is that i don't know *one*
> person who runs NT/2000 and who isn't logged on with an account with
> admin privs by default. So my argument does count to some extent...
To some extent, yes. Consider, tho - that's a user's CHOICE, to log in as
Administrator (or root, if you prefer). All you have to do is then set up a
user level account - exactly the same as you have to do in Unix/Linux - and
then log in as it. And use "su" or "sudo", when necessary. (that's what I
do - or try to)
Standard security advice is NOT to log in as root (or Administrator) for
daily use. On any OS. But if you know the root password, who's to stop you?
(except you, of course)
Not the OS's fault that you log in as root.
Don't get me wrong - there's MANY things I dislike and criticize about
NT/Win2K. But I try to be fair about it's capabilities, too.
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|