Mixing
Why do companies not give root access to their employees
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why do companies typically not give their employees root access to their desktop machines that are only used by a single employee?
If what I can do on my machine poses a threat to the rest of the network, isn't a security flaw in itself? Why would the rights I have on my own machine affect what I can do to others on the network?
Isn't the point of Unix user management to protect files of user A on machine X from access by user B on machine X?
If it's about protecting the user from himself (say, from installing something with root access that will wipe out the hard drive): Since I am working without root access, all my files are owned by myself; hence, if I am fooled and run an evil script without root access and it wipes all only the files owned by myself, it is just as bad as if I had given it root access and it wiped the entire hard drive.
corporate-policy root
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why do companies typically not give their employees root access to their desktop machines that are only used by a single employee?
If what I can do on my machine poses a threat to the rest of the network, isn't a security flaw in itself? Why would the rights I have on my own machine affect what I can do to others on the network?
Isn't the point of Unix user management to protect files of user A on machine X from access by user B on machine X?
If it's about protecting the user from himself (say, from installing something with root access that will wipe out the hard drive): Since I am working without root access, all my files are owned by myself; hence, if I am fooled and run an evil script without root access and it wipes all only the files owned by myself, it is just as bad as if I had given it root access and it wiped the entire hard drive.
corporate-policy root
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What do you mean by root access? Do you mean not providing the root password to be able to sudo, or do you mean not allowing users to log into root?
– schroeder♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why do companies typically not give their employees root access to their desktop machines that are only used by a single employee?
If what I can do on my machine poses a threat to the rest of the network, isn't a security flaw in itself? Why would the rights I have on my own machine affect what I can do to others on the network?
Isn't the point of Unix user management to protect files of user A on machine X from access by user B on machine X?
If it's about protecting the user from himself (say, from installing something with root access that will wipe out the hard drive): Since I am working without root access, all my files are owned by myself; hence, if I am fooled and run an evil script without root access and it wipes all only the files owned by myself, it is just as bad as if I had given it root access and it wiped the entire hard drive.
corporate-policy root
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Why do companies typically not give their employees root access to their desktop machines that are only used by a single employee?
If what I can do on my machine poses a threat to the rest of the network, isn't a security flaw in itself? Why would the rights I have on my own machine affect what I can do to others on the network?
Isn't the point of Unix user management to protect files of user A on machine X from access by user B on machine X?
If it's about protecting the user from himself (say, from installing something with root access that will wipe out the hard drive): Since I am working without root access, all my files are owned by myself; hence, if I am fooled and run an evil script without root access and it wipes all only the files owned by myself, it is just as bad as if I had given it root access and it wiped the entire hard drive.
corporate-policy root
corporate-policy root
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
edited 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
67.7k25142179
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
asked 5 hours ago
Bananach
1161
1161
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Bananach is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What do you mean by root access? Do you mean not providing the root password to be able to sudo, or do you mean not allowing users to log into root?
– schroeder♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
What do you mean by root access? Do you mean not providing the root password to be able to sudo, or do you mean not allowing users to log into root?
– schroeder♦
4 hours ago
What do you mean by root access? Do you mean not providing the root password to be able to sudo, or do you mean not allowing users to log into root?
– schroeder♦
4 hours ago
What do you mean by root access? Do you mean not providing the root password to be able to sudo, or do you mean not allowing users to log into root?
– schroeder♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Security administrators are responsible for your machine and what happens on your machine. This responsibility violates the basic security model for a single-user Unix machine because the admin (an absent party) is root on your machine, you are not. Unix isn't really set up for this model.
Admins need to be able to install security controls on your machine in order to protect the company, not just the data and the network and the other nodes. If the local user had root access, admins are no longer in control over those controls. That's the basic premise.
Yes, there are tons of reasons why root is needed to do bad things or to turn the machine into a malicious node, and yes there are lots of ways around those limitations and lots of ways that the local user could do bad things. But ultimately, the local user and the Risk Owner cannot be competing for control or responsibility over the machine.
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A few reasons off the top of my head:
ARP poisoning or network flooding attacks on the network would generally require root access to a machine on the network.
Being able to install unauthorised programs might open the company up to legal liability if those programs are themselves illegal (e.g. because they're pirated or not licensed for for-profit use or whatever).
If the company has any sort of remote monitoring of employees (or wants the ability to have such monitoring even if it's not in place yet), giving users root access would allow them to bypass that.
Not having root access means you can't
rm -rf /bin, or any number of other destructive things, and nor can anyone who gains access to your login details, so there's no chance your company will need to help you recover from that situation.If your company might redeploy your machine if you leave, they might feel more comfortable doing so without doing a complete wipe-and-reinstall if you've never had root access to it.
Giving people root access is easy, if it becomes necessary; taking root access away comprehensively is difficult if it becomes necessary.
The general principle of least privilege is that you shouldn't give anyone/anything access they don't actively need.
Simply not having moved on from the days of shared servers because it's a process that's worked and nothing has broken the inertia (the hypothetical monkeys and ladders problem).
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Security administrators are responsible for your machine and what happens on your machine. This responsibility violates the basic security model for a single-user Unix machine because the admin (an absent party) is root on your machine, you are not. Unix isn't really set up for this model.
Admins need to be able to install security controls on your machine in order to protect the company, not just the data and the network and the other nodes. If the local user had root access, admins are no longer in control over those controls. That's the basic premise.
Yes, there are tons of reasons why root is needed to do bad things or to turn the machine into a malicious node, and yes there are lots of ways around those limitations and lots of ways that the local user could do bad things. But ultimately, the local user and the Risk Owner cannot be competing for control or responsibility over the machine.
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Security administrators are responsible for your machine and what happens on your machine. This responsibility violates the basic security model for a single-user Unix machine because the admin (an absent party) is root on your machine, you are not. Unix isn't really set up for this model.
Admins need to be able to install security controls on your machine in order to protect the company, not just the data and the network and the other nodes. If the local user had root access, admins are no longer in control over those controls. That's the basic premise.
Yes, there are tons of reasons why root is needed to do bad things or to turn the machine into a malicious node, and yes there are lots of ways around those limitations and lots of ways that the local user could do bad things. But ultimately, the local user and the Risk Owner cannot be competing for control or responsibility over the machine.
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Security administrators are responsible for your machine and what happens on your machine. This responsibility violates the basic security model for a single-user Unix machine because the admin (an absent party) is root on your machine, you are not. Unix isn't really set up for this model.
Admins need to be able to install security controls on your machine in order to protect the company, not just the data and the network and the other nodes. If the local user had root access, admins are no longer in control over those controls. That's the basic premise.
Yes, there are tons of reasons why root is needed to do bad things or to turn the machine into a malicious node, and yes there are lots of ways around those limitations and lots of ways that the local user could do bad things. But ultimately, the local user and the Risk Owner cannot be competing for control or responsibility over the machine.
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
Security administrators are responsible for your machine and what happens on your machine. This responsibility violates the basic security model for a single-user Unix machine because the admin (an absent party) is root on your machine, you are not. Unix isn't really set up for this model.
Admins need to be able to install security controls on your machine in order to protect the company, not just the data and the network and the other nodes. If the local user had root access, admins are no longer in control over those controls. That's the basic premise.
Yes, there are tons of reasons why root is needed to do bad things or to turn the machine into a malicious node, and yes there are lots of ways around those limitations and lots of ways that the local user could do bad things. But ultimately, the local user and the Risk Owner cannot be competing for control or responsibility over the machine.
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
answered 4 hours ago
schroeder♦
67.7k25142179
67.7k25142179
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A few reasons off the top of my head:
ARP poisoning or network flooding attacks on the network would generally require root access to a machine on the network.
Being able to install unauthorised programs might open the company up to legal liability if those programs are themselves illegal (e.g. because they're pirated or not licensed for for-profit use or whatever).
If the company has any sort of remote monitoring of employees (or wants the ability to have such monitoring even if it's not in place yet), giving users root access would allow them to bypass that.
Not having root access means you can't
rm -rf /bin, or any number of other destructive things, and nor can anyone who gains access to your login details, so there's no chance your company will need to help you recover from that situation.If your company might redeploy your machine if you leave, they might feel more comfortable doing so without doing a complete wipe-and-reinstall if you've never had root access to it.
Giving people root access is easy, if it becomes necessary; taking root access away comprehensively is difficult if it becomes necessary.
The general principle of least privilege is that you shouldn't give anyone/anything access they don't actively need.
Simply not having moved on from the days of shared servers because it's a process that's worked and nothing has broken the inertia (the hypothetical monkeys and ladders problem).
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A few reasons off the top of my head:
ARP poisoning or network flooding attacks on the network would generally require root access to a machine on the network.
Being able to install unauthorised programs might open the company up to legal liability if those programs are themselves illegal (e.g. because they're pirated or not licensed for for-profit use or whatever).
If the company has any sort of remote monitoring of employees (or wants the ability to have such monitoring even if it's not in place yet), giving users root access would allow them to bypass that.
Not having root access means you can't
rm -rf /bin, or any number of other destructive things, and nor can anyone who gains access to your login details, so there's no chance your company will need to help you recover from that situation.If your company might redeploy your machine if you leave, they might feel more comfortable doing so without doing a complete wipe-and-reinstall if you've never had root access to it.
Giving people root access is easy, if it becomes necessary; taking root access away comprehensively is difficult if it becomes necessary.
The general principle of least privilege is that you shouldn't give anyone/anything access they don't actively need.
Simply not having moved on from the days of shared servers because it's a process that's worked and nothing has broken the inertia (the hypothetical monkeys and ladders problem).
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A few reasons off the top of my head:
ARP poisoning or network flooding attacks on the network would generally require root access to a machine on the network.
Being able to install unauthorised programs might open the company up to legal liability if those programs are themselves illegal (e.g. because they're pirated or not licensed for for-profit use or whatever).
If the company has any sort of remote monitoring of employees (or wants the ability to have such monitoring even if it's not in place yet), giving users root access would allow them to bypass that.
Not having root access means you can't
rm -rf /bin, or any number of other destructive things, and nor can anyone who gains access to your login details, so there's no chance your company will need to help you recover from that situation.If your company might redeploy your machine if you leave, they might feel more comfortable doing so without doing a complete wipe-and-reinstall if you've never had root access to it.
Giving people root access is easy, if it becomes necessary; taking root access away comprehensively is difficult if it becomes necessary.
The general principle of least privilege is that you shouldn't give anyone/anything access they don't actively need.
Simply not having moved on from the days of shared servers because it's a process that's worked and nothing has broken the inertia (the hypothetical monkeys and ladders problem).
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
A few reasons off the top of my head:
ARP poisoning or network flooding attacks on the network would generally require root access to a machine on the network.
Being able to install unauthorised programs might open the company up to legal liability if those programs are themselves illegal (e.g. because they're pirated or not licensed for for-profit use or whatever).
If the company has any sort of remote monitoring of employees (or wants the ability to have such monitoring even if it's not in place yet), giving users root access would allow them to bypass that.
Not having root access means you can't
rm -rf /bin, or any number of other destructive things, and nor can anyone who gains access to your login details, so there's no chance your company will need to help you recover from that situation.If your company might redeploy your machine if you leave, they might feel more comfortable doing so without doing a complete wipe-and-reinstall if you've never had root access to it.
Giving people root access is easy, if it becomes necessary; taking root access away comprehensively is difficult if it becomes necessary.
The general principle of least privilege is that you shouldn't give anyone/anything access they don't actively need.
Simply not having moved on from the days of shared servers because it's a process that's worked and nothing has broken the inertia (the hypothetical monkeys and ladders problem).
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
answered 4 hours ago
me_and
1526
1526
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Bananach is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Bananach is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Bananach is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Bananach is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196350%2fwhy-do-companies-not-give-root-access-to-their-employees%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
What do you mean by root access? Do you mean not providing the root password to be able to sudo, or do you mean not allowing users to log into root?
– schroeder♦
4 hours ago