On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 10:59:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:

> I have my UID set at 500, because I've wanted to maintain the
> same UID since I first started using Linux.
>
> I'll change it one day, but all my backups will have to change too.

Surely you only need to fix it if/when you actually do a restore from
backups:

find . -uid 500 -print0 | xargs -0 chown 1000

On 2024-09-01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 10:59:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>
>> I have my UID set at 500, because I've wanted to maintain the
>> same UID since I first started using Linux.
>>
>> I'll change it one day, but all my backups will have to change too.
>
> Surely you only need to fix it if/when you actually do a restore from
> backups:
>
> find . -uid 500 -print0 | xargs -0 chown 1000

Yes, correct. It is just the thought that my backups aren't perfect
that bothers me. I'm rather particular about that.

I'll get it done one day, but everything is working as it should now.

On 9/1/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Xref: unconfigured comp.os.linux.misc:2256
> So it takes the root user two steps to modify/delete that file,

> instead of one.
On 9/1/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> So it takes the root user two steps to modify/delete that file,
Sometimes that extra step is all that's needed to prevent processes from
> instead of one.
falling off the rails.

Sometimes that extra step is all that's needed to prevent processes from
Why didn't that work? ... Oh!
falling off the rails.

Why didn't that work? ... Oh!

--

Grant. . . .

.
--
Grant. . . .

On 9/1/24 02:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> I think it’s configurable.
Yep.

It's been configurable on every system that I've cared to look at in the
last 25 years.

System defaults are usually quite sufficient.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 9/1/24 02:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> I think it’s configurable.
> Yep.
>
> It's been configurable on every system that I've cared to look at in the
> last 25 years.
>
> System defaults are usually quite sufficient.

As far as the kernel is concerned, there is only one 'special' userid,
zero, which denotes the root user.

Everything else is just convention, and the kernel does not care if
your userid is 1 or 500 or 1000, they are all "not zero" and so are not
'special'.

The convention of starting regular users at 500 (or 1000) was done
simply to leave a gap of id's for daemon's. Over time, as more and
more daemon's were modified to run under their own user id instead of
all running as root (for security separation concerns), the available
'space' when starting at 500 shrank. Somewhere along the way, the
convention changed to 1000 to make up for the shrinkage in the free
space below 500.

And this convention is just there so that when looking at "ps" output,
one can tell a system daemon from a user process by noting the userid
value.

On 2024-09-01 15:35, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-09-01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 10:59:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>>
>>> I have my UID set at 500, because I've wanted to maintain the
>>> same UID since I first started using Linux.
>>>
>>> I'll change it one day, but all my backups will have to change too.
>>
>> Surely you only need to fix it if/when you actually do a restore from
>> backups:
>>
>> find . -uid 500 -print0 | xargs -0 chown 1000
>
> Yes, correct. It is just the thought that my backups aren't perfect
> that bothers me. I'm rather particular about that.
>
> I'll get it done one day, but everything is working as it should now.

Consider backups as history. You do not rewrite history.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> As far as the kernel is concerned, there is only one 'special' userid,
> zero, which denotes the root user.

AFAIK uid 0 is not particularly special either from the kernel’s point
of view. suser() was removed 20 years or so go, and it’s all
capabilities now.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 11:47:34 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 9/1/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> So it takes the root user two steps to modify/delete that file,
>> instead of one.
>
> Sometimes that extra step is all that's needed to prevent processes from
> falling off the rails.

To guard against accidents, yes.

To guard against malice, no.

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 23:42:09 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 11:47:34 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> So it takes the root user two steps to modify/delete that file,
>>> instead of one.
>>
>> Sometimes that extra step is all that's needed to prevent processes
>> from falling off the rails.
>
> To guard against accidents, yes.
>
> To guard against malice, no.

I forget which distro it was but if you ran as root the wallpaper turned
to a bright red field with cartoon style bombs with lit fuses. One
picture...

On 2 Sep 2024 03:44:20 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> I forget which distro it was but if you ran as root the wallpaper turned
> to a bright red field with cartoon style bombs with lit fuses. One
> picture...

I think I remember that.

In <ljkqkjFqi63U4@mid.individual.net> rbowman:

[Snip...]

> I forget which distro it was but if you ran as root the wallpaper turned
> to a bright red field with cartoon style bombs with lit fuses. One
> picture...

Very old releases of SUSE logged into root via xdm, IIRC.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

On 2024-09-02 05:44, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 23:42:09 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 11:47:34 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/1/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> So it takes the root user two steps to modify/delete that file,
>>>> instead of one.
>>>
>>> Sometimes that extra step is all that's needed to prevent processes
>>> from falling off the rails.
>>
>> To guard against accidents, yes.
>>
>> To guard against malice, no.
>
>
> I forget which distro it was but if you ran as root the wallpaper turned
> to a bright red field with cartoon style bombs with lit fuses. One
> picture...

It happened with an old openSUSE or SUSE version, long ago. Could be
version 7.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 9/1/24 18:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> To guard against accidents, yes.

Yep.

> To guard against malice, no.

I also said "sometimes".

My experience has been that accidents happen 100 to 1000 times more
often than human malicious actors.

Also, most security measures can (eventually) be bypassed by skilled
human actors.

--
Grant. . . .