(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

I heard from one of the forums I subscribe to that Linux Puppy boots into root user by default. Is there a way so that I can boot into Linux Puppy that is more secure like I do on my Mac and in Ubuntu? I am trying Linux Puppy from the CD and am very impressed with the speed etc!!!

Thanks!!

Read this first http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67213

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67885

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=57914

Maybe also link to the Blog text of Barry Kauler re Wary with Fido.

My thread there is not good enough in my opinion.

I had hoped when I started it that very many people would test and share but nothing seemed to came out of it.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67885

I can recommend Rexbang puppy Chromium run in Spot and Chromium browser try to be aware of security issues.

I think one have to see all this from two perspectives.

Single user and the OS seen from outside in through the Router or Modem.

1. Single user of Puppy at home. When younger or not so experienced users start up Puppy them can without wanting it do something that change for the one that set it all up so if one are aware of such then most of the cautions of running as root will be just common sense care needed.

2. Puppy OS seen from outside through a wifi modem or somebody wanting to break in. That maybe need expert knowledge to know how much more vulnereably it is compared to a Multi user OS?

Puppy supporters now and then seems to challenge critics that them should mention just one such incident when it was vulnerable and them have not done that. So either that means none did care or that it is not as vulnerable as the critics say?

Sadlyu I know too little to really know. So I wish to know too and that was why I started that thread. But seems too few cared about it and I am too computer challenged to do anything further.

uh nooby I did already link to your thread it was the second link buddy.

Yes sorry my english fails me.

That is why I wrote

My thread there is not good enough in my opinion.

It was my way to comment that maybe you linking to my thread was not a good choice. I did not promote my thread I tried to give a friendly comment that maybe it was not the best choice. Sorry.

rmcellig wrote:I heard from one of the forums I subscribe to that Linux Puppy boots into root user by default. Is there a way so that I can boot into Linux Puppy that is more secure like I do on my Mac and in Ubuntu? I am trying Linux Puppy from the CD and am very impressed with the speed etc!!!

Thanks!!

short answer:
I don't know what is on your CD
take wary512
This will let you choose running as unprivileged user fido.
I am using it.

I don't know for Windows 7, didn't follow anymore, but before 7 mostly all people were running as administrator.

Béèm Windows administrator is different from running as root on a unix/linux system. A more comparative analysis would be comparing running as the System User on Windows vs running Root on unix/linux.

Ubuntu did not allow me what I was doing on WinXP way back in 2007 or 2008. Maybe the Admin and User thing started with Win Vista and Win7.
Or on WinXP Pro? While WinXP Home allowed one to be Admin the whole time? I never had problem with XP. I instantly got in huge trouble using Ubuntu.

WinXP could be set to User but it was not the default? One could chose which one wanted to be?

But sure my memory is not so good. Does anybody know when they forced us to be user and not Admin at Windows?

AFAIK I could do everything on Windows XP as I could on Puppy and none of that was allowed to me on Ubuntu so I changed to Puppy instead.

nooby I'm not quite sure if you're responding to me or not but please allow me to clarify what I said above anyway. In Windows you've always had the ability to run as Administrator, even when the original admin account was hidden/locked as it is a lot with laptops/pre-configured PCs it was always easy to find and enable. Windows also has an account/user called the System User, which basically allows you to do things that even an account admin cannot do such as stopping certain processes, change certain security settings, or even mess with the kernel, and permanently delete certain files like corrupted dll's without windows automatically reloading them, in this way it's much like a Root user on Puppy/Ubuntu/whatever linux disto.

Then I stand corrected. Normal average Joe Nooby users seldom had to do such though.

What I do asssert is that it was a huge difference to go from WinXP Home to Ubuntu. Total chaos one was not allowed anything as I remember. I still fail to use Ubuntu or Mint or any of the most famous.

I never failed to use WinXP

Starting to go off topic here but I am really interested in the 'System User' of Windows mentioned by DPUP5520.

Can you point me to somewhere where this user (and their abilities) are explained.

My experience pre Windows Vista on a home PC was that the default user could do anything, i.e. admin, just as a Puppy user can. On a Server system it might have been different although I cannot remember the term 'System User'.

Windows Vista/7 is very different. On Home Premium version the default user on first installation is termed as an administrator by Microsoft - but they do not have the priviledges they had with earlier versions of Windows. I would not call it an Administrator. There is, however, a hidden Administrator account that CAN do anything. I haven't investigated down that route yet.

just found this article here about it https://alieneyes.wordpress.com/2006/10 ... n-windows/

DPUP5520 wrote:Béèm Windows administrator is different from running as root on a unix/linux system. A more comparative analysis would be comparing running as the System User on Windows vs running Root on unix/linux.

Running as Windows administrator is still more dangerous hen running as a normal user.
And I am sure, as the system comes configured as administrator not many people change and make a normal user for daily business.
I plea guilty as I run as administrator in Windows.

My apologies I wasn't trying to say that running as an admin on windows isn't dangerous just that its not the same thing as running as the root user on Linux.

Linux Puppy that is more secure like I do on my Mac and in Ubuntu?

welcome to the kennels
Secure from who or what?

Our most dangerous adversary is our own ignorance.
Both Mac and Ubuntu are keen to keep that status secure.

If Puppy is run from CD, none of the programs can be modified.
So running from a live DVD is fast and secure enough, just turn on the firewall
if you don't have one in your router - or even if you do . . .

Now what are the threats you are insecure about?
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/security

Thank you DPUP5520 for the link and increasing my knowledge.

I look at Task Manager every day and it never stuck me that SYSTEM was an actual account that you could get into.

My task Manager also lists the following users:
wininstall_service
LOCAL SERVICE
NETWORK SERVICE

I wonder why there has to be these specialist users when SYSTEM exists ... As you answer one query more questions arise ...

Anyway - let's get this thread back on topic. Thanks once again for the info.

Lobster - your comment is the sort that the 'don't run as root' brigade lap up to label us as idiots.

While I do not have much fear from using Puppy specifically. The types of threat constantly evolve and are there.

I do not worry too much about viruses, trojans etc.

However, I do worry about drive by attacks that use browser capabilities to to determine personal info that might be useful to the ne'er-do-wells. Such info may be available in the pupsave file or even in the current session somewhere. I don't know - I am not that much of a cracker - but I don't close my eyes to it. Of course running non-root will not save you from this, neither will running Ubuntu, Windows or anything else.

Our most dangerous adversary is not our ignorance but ourselves, if we are shut our eyes to the possibilities.

ICPUG wrote:Anyway - let's get this thread back on topic.

Don't bother.

The OP didn't come back to this topic to show any interest or make it even possible to answer his question as it is worded.

I think you all should go right on talking about whatever interests you. If the OP comes back and shows interest and is willing to answer questions, then the topic can shift back on its own dynamic.

After a day or two I might give it a title appropriate to the actual content.

~

ICPUG I don't know much about the "Local Service" and "Network Service" accounts only that they are accounts specifically for controlling a limited set of obviously network and local services, as for "wininstall_service" If I remember correctly is the account that controls the Windows installer and can install custom services on the machine but I'm not quite sure about that one.