Talk:Superuser

Untitled

This page needs a reference to ThinkGeek's "Bow before me, for I am root" t-shirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.153.19 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I dream that 'root' in the very early days was 'god'? (No I don't mean pre-computer!) Rich Farmbrough 21:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Always crack 127.0.0.1. They'll never know it was you Pilk 02:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

falken

Hi. What's the deal with the "falken in NetBSD" part? AFAIK, UID 0 have always had only a root/toor account by default. And falken (previously falcon) was a disabled by default, non-UID 0 user (inherited from 4.4BSD-lite I think) with wargames(6) as a shell. So it's a joke, people. If you were to login as falken, it would start a game (but that user is not even there anymore; http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/master.passwd?rev=1.19&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup). toor is also there on most *BSDs, and other UNICES, but it is usually disabled by default (and it is on {Open,Free,Net}BSD). The toor page says "It is also the default superuser in few Operating Systems like NetBSD.", and this is also misleading IMNSHO. NetBSD is not different from other UNICES in regard to the root user.

Windows NT/2000/XP/Longhorn

As far as I'm aware, under these operating systems, by default, the user named Administrator is a superuser through a combination of privileges given to:

• the Administrator user account,
• the Everyone object and
• the Administrators user group.

However, the user called Administrator is not necessarily a superuser. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 04:38, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• This article does already explain how your understanding is wrong. Uncle G 11:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Modifications

Anyone mind if I make some serious modifications to this page?

A superuser account is an account that exists outside the scope of the system's security policy, hence in UNIX root can modify files that the permissions bits give him no access to.

Single-user systems like DOS, OS <X, Win95/98/ME, and BeOS lack superuser accounts since they lack security policies. Systems featuring a reference monitor or labeled security like WinNT/2k/XP/2003, SE-Linux, Trusted Solaris, STOP, SecureOS, and HP-VV also lack superuser accounts as such an exception to the security policy would defeat their whole point.

Cheers

Robert 71.129.205.254 10:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I support those changes, Robert, although I can't speak to their accuracy WRT Windows (perhaps the only people who truly could have signed NDAs to not do so). The existing introduction (2nd para) veers off on a tangent about systems which DON'T have a superuser account, which doesn't make it particularly clear. Xurizaemon (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

runas

>To run a program as a superuser in Windows XP and probably later versions of Windows, use the command runas. works also on Windows 2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.74.175 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Charlie root

It seems that many people do not know why root has the name Charlie. The name comes from the co-creator of the Berkeley Systems Distribution of UNIX, Charles B. Haley. His instructions (co-authored with Dennis Ritchie) on how to install a UNIX system on the PDP11 also give an explanation as to why "root" is "root". It's all about the filesystem.

See http://minnie.tuhs.org/PUPS/Setup/v7_setup.ps.gz and http://mcs.open.ac.uk/cbh46/career_summary.htm

Also, someone above talking about the "god" user is mistaken. "God" was a password often used for the root account for those people who preferred not to use the default "root" password.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.230.46 (talk)

Hi Alberzoom (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Jessica nicole taylor (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

login as system a vulnerability?

You've got to be joking. How is being able to log in as a super-user a vulnerability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genshihebi (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Is it really "super user"? Or was it originally "substitute user"? - KitchM (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

fakeroot

Fakeroot redirects here, though no explanation to the term is provided in the article. thanks 80.179.220.87 (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on abuses

This page should discuss these reasons a superuser is needed. Less emphasis (liike not in very paragraph) on virus use root...

Let's just add a paragraph at the end regarding the risks of using root and refer to virus page. DGerman (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove WinNT Admin

The article says that in Windows (before UAC) the Administrator could be removed from the Administrators group and put into the Power Users group to mitigate some risks. This is not true. The built-in Administrator cannot be removed from the built-in Administrators group, because this could lead to a system without an Administrator. But maybe the author wanted to say something else? Please fix. --84.72.38.126 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Superuser article importance

@Widefox:While the existence of a superuser account is certainly a prime concern for someone securing a system, it simply isn't a very important subject for a WP article, even within the scope of WP:WikiProject Computer Security. It exists, it needs to be considered, but it's really not very interesting (other than in the sense of "what idiot decided to add that to the system?"). Consider that Password strength and Mandatory access control, which are far more important subject for security, only get "Mid", and Principle of least privilege, only gets a "Low" (and if there's something in that bunch that deserves a "High", that's it).

No. "Mid" is overgenerous for this article, "High" is *way* overstating the case.

Nor are superuser accounts universal (although they are common). Rwessel (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rwessel: It's one thing. Can be difficult/subjective to compare such diverse topics generally, let alone across practical and principle. Done: Principle of least privilege -> high, Password strength -> high, MAC -> high. Do agree password strength is higher than this. An account/role crucial for contemporary platforms, plus tangentially for a billion Android rootable devices. Not sure what you mean by "what idiot..", and the fact that it's essentially ubiquitous. I think there's three letter orgs that realise how important the account is too given the last few years. The problem with WP:OTHERSTUFF is there's a lot out there - also high are: Avast Software, Library Freedom Project, List of antivirus software List of computer viruses (all) x-times etc. This is above them IMHO. Widefox; talk 20:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As the first person to rate this, do welcome up or down assessments, but the comment "Superusers are artifacts of some security systems. Frankly I'm not sure the concept even deserves a "Mid"" seems way off the mark for practical day to day security. It's hardly "some" systems. Vast majority, and billions. Widefox; talk 21:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You rather missed the point - I don't think Password strength and Mandatory access control deserve to be "High" (although I do think Principle of least privilege is a reasonable candidate). I'd really prefer you changed them back. As to the "idiot" comment, consensus is that systems should not be designed with superuser accounts, and that's been understood for decades, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, the ratings are all pretty subjective, and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF is not really helpful, since the main guideline is precedent. Changing the precedent is an interest approach to the discussion, though.  ;-)

But I ask again: why is the *Wikipedia* article on superusers of high importance? Certainly someone securing a system must consider any such accounts very carefully, but why is the WP article important? It's an implementation detail, not any sort of fundamental issue or construct. Mere commonality/popularity is not sufficient, or the articles on the Kardashians would be rated "High". Rwessel (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It was missing any rating before. The account/privs are on all common systems (we're repeating now). I believe I understood your point, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assessment or relative ratings, and restating it and demanding I change things back doesn't progress. Now, it has to be said that my purpose was largely to get it rated to start off. Otherstuff is that the ratings look all over the place by my counter examples, but this article certainly isn't low and I'm sure we agree it's more important than those other High articles?

Seems odd to ask the importance of the topic? Software/malware install, cart-blanche access, etc etc. Fundamental on a practical level. Not sure if principles trump implementation. It is a genuine rating, so please reply wrt my examples.

By analogy, what level of importance are Wikipedia:ADMINs on WP? May be subjective, somewhat. On a practical basis can we agree "High"?! This article has that hatnote. More opinions welcome BTW. Widefox; talk 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2711karthick@gmail. Com 2711karthick (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation-

The main topic page of this subject should be referenced as a disambiguation page in order to more thoroughly distinguish the topic from other usage of the term.

Habatchii (talk)

"Fakeroot" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fakeroot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10 § Fakeroot until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)