On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:18:23AM -0800, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > > > One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known > > point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called > > root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge? > > That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's > labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out > of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is > given full sudo access, and can choose to grant sudo to subsequently > created users. (Users with sudo can still get a root shell, but that's > not the same as logging in as root.) > > I thought Ubuntu did this as well, but I haven't installed Ubuntu for > quite a while. Anyone know? Yes, I think they were one of the first ones to do it. I remember thinking at the time, ah, copying Apple. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6