Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 17th Dec 2011 00:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 500363
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
While always logging in as root is indeed not a good idea it has little to do with compromising your personal data. Your personal data is just as vulnerable when you surf the net as an unprivileged user.
I know this is a stretch, but if you have a secondary user account for more important, confidential things like online banking and use the UNIX user/group/permissions system properly, then your banking stuff is pretty damn safe while browsing the web for porn or something on your standard everyday account. Just be sure to be safe and wear a NoScript condom and keep your vaccinations (system updates) up to date. Heh.
Yeah, I know that's completely not funny, but I just had to twist it in that direction. Hey, it still gets the point across.
Use 'chmod 600 filename' (for owner rw) or 'chmod 400 filename' (for owner ro) on files that you intend to keep private. Do 'chmod 700 dirname' on directories whose entire contents you want to keep private.
Hell, you can even just put your "confidential" user account in its own group; if you run Debian and don't change the defaults, this is automatically done for you... instead of, for example, user 'uz64' being in group 'users' he will be in a group of the same name, 'uz64'. Completely segregates users and all of their data. Might still be good practice to properly set permissions though, and if you're really extreme about security you'll want to consider encrypting your files.




Member since:
2005-08-18
That's a bit of an odd design decision, to say the least.
While always logging in as root is indeed not a good idea it has little to do with compromising your personal data. Your personal data is just as vulnerable when you surf the net as an unprivileged user.