Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #229759 > unrolled thread

Debian 10 64bit

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Debian 10 64bit Jerry Mellon <jfmellon@netscape.net> - 2020-12-15 01:50 +0100
    Re: Debian 10 64bit Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-12-15 03:00 +0100
    Re: Debian 10 64bit john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-12-15 08:10 +0100
    Re: Debian 10 64bit Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 10:30 +0100
      Re: Debian 10 64bit john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-12-15 11:40 +0100
        Re: Debian 10 64bit Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 12:40 +0100
        Re: Debian 10 64bit Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-12-15 18:40 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 64bit "Gareth Evans" <donotspam@fastmail.fm> - 2020-12-15 19:10 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 64bit Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-12-15 19:20 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 64bit Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-12-15 19:50 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 21:20 +0100
                  Re: Debian 10 64bit <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-12-16 10:50 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 64bit "Gareth Evans" <donotspam@fastmail.fm> - 2020-12-15 19:50 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 64bit "Gareth Evans" <garethevans@fastmail.fm> - 2020-12-15 20:00 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 64bit Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-12-15 22:00 +0100
          Re: Debian 10 64bit john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-12-15 19:40 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 64bit Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-12-15 20:40 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 64bit Keith Bainbridge <ke1thozgroups@gmx.com> - 2020-12-16 11:20 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-12-16 11:40 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-12-16 15:30 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-12-16 22:50 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit Steven Mainor <steve@degga.net> - 2020-12-17 12:30 +0100
            Re: Debian 10 64bit David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-12-16 23:10 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 64bit Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-12-17 01:20 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-12-17 11:00 +0100
              Re: Debian 10 64bit <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-12-17 16:10 +0100
                Re: Debian 10 64bit Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-12-17 16:20 +0100
                  Re: Debian 10 64bit David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-12-17 17:30 +0100
                    Re: Debian 10 64bit <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-12-17 17:40 +0100
                      Re: Debian 10 64bit steef <debian.linux@home.nl> - 2020-12-17 23:00 +0100
                    Re: Debian 10 64bit David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-12-17 17:40 +0100
                    Re: Debian 10 64bit <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-12-18 21:10 +0100
                  Re: Debian 10 64bit <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-12-18 21:00 +0100
                  Re: Debian 10 64bit David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-12-19 21:10 +0100
                    Re: Debian 10 64bit Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-12-20 18:10 +0100
                      Re: Debian 10 64bit Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-12-21 14:10 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#229795

On Wed 16 Dec 2020 at 10:09:44 (+0000), Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> I was not offered to set a root passwd  during the last 2 Buster installs I did.  Admittedly,  with mateDE and MAYBE that makes a difference. Who's going to try it to prove the point? It'll be several days before I can.  Will do if I don't see somebody beat me to it. 

It takes about two minutes to get to these screens, which follow
the shadow passwords question:

    ┌──────────────────┤ [?] Set up users and passwords ├──────────────────┐    
    │                                                                      │    
    │ If you choose not to allow root to log in, then a user account will  │    
    │ be created and given the power to become root using the 'sudo'       │    
    │ command.                                                             │    
    │                                                                      │    
    │ Allow login as root?                                                 │    
    │                                                                      │    
    │     <Go Back>                                      <Yes>    <No>     │    
    │                                                                      │    
    └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘    

(Yes was selected.)

   ┌──────────────────┤ [!!] Set up users and passwords ├──────────────────┐    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ You need to set a password for 'root', the system administrative      │    
   │ account. A malicious or unqualified user with root access can have    │    
   │ disastrous results, so you should take care to choose a root password │    
   │ that is not easy to guess. It should not be a word found in           │    
   │ dictionaries, or a word that could be easily associated with you.     │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ A good password will contain a mixture of letters, numbers and        │    
   │ punctuation and should be changed at regular intervals.               │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ The root user should not have an empty password. If you leave this    │    
   │ empty, the root account will be disabled and the system's initial     │    
   │ user account will be given the power to become root using the "sudo"  │    
   │ command.                                                              │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ Note that you will not be able to see the password as you type it.    │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ Root password:                                                        │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ _____________________________________________________________________ │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │ [ ] Show Password in Clear                                            │    
   │                                                                       │    
   │     <Go Back>                                          <Continue>     │    
   │                                                                       │    
   └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘    

Selecting MATE is irrelevant, because that decision is only made
many steps further on, as indicated here:

         […]
      │  Configure the network                                           │      
→     │  Set up users and passwords                                      │      
      │  Configure the clock                                             │      
      │  Detect disks                                                    │      
      │  Partition disks                                                 │      
      │  Install the base system                                         │      
      │  Configure the package manager                                   │      
→     │  Select and install software                                     │      
      │  Install the GRUB boot loader on a hard disk                     │      
         […]

If required by your answers above, sudo will be installed
automatically during the "finish-install" step. Obviously
it may also get installed as a dependency of some software you
selected at an earlier stage.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229804

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I just finished installing Debain 10 on two VMs from the amd64 ISO 
(debian-10.7.0-amd64-netinst.iso)

For both installs I used the graphical installer left all options at 
defaults, Including the default desktop environment "Debian desktop 
environment".

On the first install I left the root password blank and for the second I 
set a root password.

The graphical installer does mention that if a root password is not set 
the first user will be added to sudoers file and I can confirm that is 
the case.

I can also confirm that sudo is installed in both cases if you set a 
root password or not.

I did not try installing Mate but It is worth mentioning that the 
installer asks for a root password long before it asks which desktop to 
install.

I hope this is helpful to someone.

---
Steven Mainor

On 2020-12-16 05:09, Keith Bainbridge wrote:

> I was not offered to set a root passwd during the last 2 Buster 
> installs I did. Admittedly, with mateDE and MAYBE that makes a 
> difference. Who's going to try it to prove the point? It'll be several 
> days before I can. Will do if I don't see somebody beat me to it.
> Keith BAINBRIDGE
> ke1thozgroups@gmx.com
> 
> Sent from my Aphone
> 
> On 15 December 2020 7:01:32 pm UTC, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On Tue 15 Dec 2020 at 19:33:53 +0100, john doe wrote:
> 
> On 12/15/2020 6:34 PM, Tixy wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 11:36 +0100, john doe wrote:
> On 12/15/2020 10:19 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 14 dec 20, 19:45:54, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> I finally got around to installing debian 10 on my 64bit system(thus
> removing the i386version I had originally instaled). The install went
> well and I asked for a seperate Home particion. When I booted the 
> system
> and try to do "apt-get update and apt-get upgrade" using "sudo" it 
> would
> not let me do that. Said I was not a sudo user. I then tried "su root"
> which failed as well as it said I was not a sudo user. I went to the
> sudouse file and changed it to make me a user. Sudo as myself worked
> fine but su root still did not work.
> 
> After seeing the email concering problems with sudo and su root I
> decided to reload. I did but did a use whole disk (no home part).
> After booting I did have to go to the sudouser file an change it again
> but the su root worked with out a problem.
> You probably set a root password during install.
> 
> The Debian Installer will configure 'sudo' for the first user only if
> you leave the root password blank. This is explained during the 
> install.

That doesn't look to be the case anymore, I just installed Buster with
Mate and sudo is installed.
Because sudo is a recommended package of task-desktop, which is a
dependency of task-mate-desktop. But if you gave it a root password
during install then it didn't add the user you created at install time
into the 'sudo' group, so no user can use sudo. (This does make me
wonder why 'sudo' is recommended by task-desktop in the first place.)

Or at the very least, if sudo is installed having it configured with
the user added to the sudo group regardless of if a root password is 
set.

You are being obtuse.

d-i does not install sudo unless it is requested. That's the only point
at issue. It is the only thing that matters.

Why Mate chooses to install sudo is a different issue. It does not
invalidate

> The Debian Installer will configure 'sudo' for the first
> user only if you leave the root password blank. This is
> explained during the install.

What a particular package does has no bearing on the design of d-i's
base system.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229796

On Tue 15 Dec 2020 at 19:33:53 (+0100), john doe wrote:
> On 12/15/2020 6:34 PM, Tixy wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 11:36 +0100, john doe wrote:
> > > On 12/15/2020 10:19 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> > > > The Debian Installer will configure 'sudo' for the first user only if
> > > > you leave the root password blank. This is explained during the install.
> > > 
> > > That doesn't look to be the case anymore, I just installed Buster with
> > > Mate and sudo is installed.

(Already refuted.)

> > Because sudo is a recommended package of task-desktop, which is a
> > dependency of task-mate-desktop. But if you gave it a root password
> > during install then it didn't add the user you created at install time
> > into the 'sudo' group, so no user can use sudo.

Not until root configures it, (which *could* involve adding users
to the sudo group).

> > (This does make me
> > wonder why 'sudo' is recommended by task-desktop in the first place.)

I can't answer that as I don't run any DE.

> Or at the very least, if  sudo is installed having it configured with
> the user added to the sudo group regardless of if a root password is set.

It would appear that you don't understand any other manner in which
sudo can be configured besides just bestowing on a user the power of
%sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL  with membership of the sudo group. It takes
man sudoers    over 2400 lines to describe its flexibility.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229799

On Wed 16 Dec 2020 at 16:00:08 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 15 Dec 2020 at 19:33:53 (+0100), john doe wrote:
> > On 12/15/2020 6:34 PM, Tixy wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 11:36 +0100, john doe wrote:
> > > > On 12/15/2020 10:19 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > > > > The Debian Installer will configure 'sudo' for the first user only if
> > > > > you leave the root password blank. This is explained during the install.
> > > > 
> > > > That doesn't look to be the case anymore, I just installed Buster with
> > > > Mate and sudo is installed.
> 
> (Already refuted.)
> 
> > > Because sudo is a recommended package of task-desktop, which is a
> > > dependency of task-mate-desktop. But if you gave it a root password
> > > during install then it didn't add the user you created at install time
> > > into the 'sudo' group, so no user can use sudo.
> 
> Not until root configures it, (which *could* involve adding users
> to the sudo group).
> 
> > > (This does make me
> > > wonder why 'sudo' is recommended by task-desktop in the first place.)
> 
> I can't answer that as I don't run any DE.

Neither do I have a DE, but we all have access to the task-desktop
changelog:

tasksel (3.44) unstable; urgency=medium

  [ nicoo ]
  * Team upload.
  * Add myself as uploader.

  * task-desktop
    - Depend on libu2f-udev. (Closes: #891472)
    - Depend on sudo. (Closes: #773550)

-- nicoo <nicoo@debian.org>  Wed, 23 May 2018 23:56:54 +0200

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229803

On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 23:54 +0000, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 16 Dec 2020 at 16:00:08 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> 
> > On Tue 15 Dec 2020 at 19:33:53 (+0100), john doe wrote:
> > > On 12/15/2020 6:34 PM, Tixy wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 11:36 +0100, john doe wrote:
> > > > > On 12/15/2020 10:19 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > The Debian Installer will configure 'sudo' for the first
> > > > > > user only if
> > > > > > you leave the root password blank. This is explained during
> > > > > > the install.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That doesn't look to be the case anymore, I just installed
> > > > > Buster with
> > > > > Mate and sudo is installed.
> > 
> > (Already refuted.)
> > 
> > > > Because sudo is a recommended package of task-desktop, which is
> > > > a
> > > > dependency of task-mate-desktop. But if you gave it a root
> > > > password
> > > > during install then it didn't add the user you created at
> > > > install time
> > > > into the 'sudo' group, so no user can use sudo.
> > 
> > Not until root configures it, (which *could* involve adding users
> > to the sudo group).
> > 
> > > > (This does make me
> > > > wonder why 'sudo' is recommended by task-desktop in the first
> > > > place.)
> > 
> > I can't answer that as I don't run any DE.
> 
> Neither do I have a DE, but we all have access to the task-desktop
> changelog:
> 
> tasksel (3.44) unstable; urgency=medium
> 
>   [ nicoo ]
>   * Team upload.
>   * Add myself as uploader.
> 
>   * task-desktop
>     - Depend on libu2f-udev. (Closes: #891472)
>     - Depend on sudo. (Closes: #773550)
> 

Hmm, so Gnome stopped needing sudo, but that caused hiccups for Gnome
users without a root password when upgrading to Jessie - because fail-
safes stopped sudo being removed and leaving the system without any
method to gain root privileges. So the fix for was to make all desktop
tasks recommend sudo, justified 'given the usefulness of this package'.
That smells to me like an expedient hack to avoid addressing more
difficult problems (but I'm not sure if I were in the same position I
wouldn't have agreed, what with no doubt more important things needing
my valuable time).

I'm guessing that old installers didn't mark sudo as manually installed
if root password wasn't given and sudo was in the list of packages to
be installed anyway (otherwise the upgrage bug wouldn't have happened
in the first place).

-- 
Tixy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229805

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> Hi,
> When I installed Debian 10 the %sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL had a "#" in
> front of it. Does the "%" have the same function as the "#"?

No: "#" indicates a comment, i.e. that line is commented out. You'd
have to remove the "#" (not the "%", though) to make it effective.

The effect of that line is that users in the group sudo (group is
indicated by the "%") can do everything root can do (they have to
issue their password for that, though).

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229806

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 04:02:31PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> > Hi,
> > When I installed Debian 10 the %sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL had a "#" in
> > front of it. Does the "%" have the same function as the "#"?
> 
> No: "#" indicates a comment, i.e. that line is commented out. You'd
> have to remove the "#" (not the "%", though) to make it effective.

How did you (Jerry) end up with this configuration?  This is not
normal as far as I know.  I can't imagine any Debian developer wrote
a postinst script that would comment out individual lines in the
/etc/sudoers file.

I'm guessing there is more to this story than you're telling us.  Either
you didn't install Debian (perhaps you installed Raspbian or something),
or you modified the sudoers file during or after the installation, or
you inherited this system from someone else who modified it....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229807

On Thu 17 Dec 2020 at 10:13:28 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 04:02:31PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > When I installed Debian 10 the %sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL had a "#" in
> > > front of it. Does the "%" have the same function as the "#"?
> > 
> > No: "#" indicates a comment, i.e. that line is commented out. You'd
> > have to remove the "#" (not the "%", though) to make it effective.

Take care!

# this is a comment,
#1000 means UID 1000,
#include is a directive.

People hit this snag in apparmor files too.

> How did you (Jerry) end up with this configuration?  This is not
> normal as far as I know.  I can't imagine any Debian developer wrote
> a postinst script that would comment out individual lines in the
> /etc/sudoers file.
> 
> I'm guessing there is more to this story than you're telling us.  Either
> you didn't install Debian (perhaps you installed Raspbian or something),
> or you modified the sudoers file during or after the installation, or
> you inherited this system from someone else who modified it....

It might be helpful for the output of this command to be posted:

    ls --full-time /etc/sudoers /etc/sudoers.d/

(It will need sudo or root.)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229808

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:20:57AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 17 Dec 2020 at 10:13:28 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 04:02:31PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > When I installed Debian 10 the %sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL had a "#" in
> > > > front of it. Does the "%" have the same function as the "#"?
> > > 
> > > No: "#" indicates a comment, i.e. that line is commented out. You'd
> > > have to remove the "#" (not the "%", though) to make it effective.
> 
> Take care!
> 
> # this is a comment,
> #1000 means UID 1000,
> #include is a directive.

Oh, yes! As I generally say, all generalisations suck :)

Thanks for nitting that pick, I oversaw it completely.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229811

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote on 17-12-20 17:36:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:20:57AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>> On Thu 17 Dec 2020 at 10:13:28 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 04:02:31PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> When I installed Debian 10 the %sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL had a "#" in
>>>>> front of it. Does the "%" have the same function as the "#"?
>>>>
>>>> No: "#" indicates a comment, i.e. that line is commented out. You'd
>>>> have to remove the "#" (not the "%", though) to make it effective.
>>
>> Take care!
>>
>> # this is a comment,
>> #1000 means UID 1000,
>> #include is a directive.
> 
> Oh, yes! As I generally say, all generalisations suck :)
> 
> Thanks for nitting that pick, I oversaw it completely.
> 
> Cheers
>   - t
> 


hi

# User privilege specification
root,steef      ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL

put this or something like this in /etc/sudoers and replace i.c. my name, steef, with whoever you want

for me this works for 22 years.

sorry to have maybe bothered you

steef

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229809

On Thu 17 Dec 2020 at 10:20:57 (-0600), I wrote:
> On Thu 17 Dec 2020 at 10:13:28 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 04:02:31PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > When I installed Debian 10 the %sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL had a "#" in
> > > > front of it. Does the "%" have the same function as the "#"?
> > > 
> > > No: "#" indicates a comment, i.e. that line is commented out. You'd
> > > have to remove the "#" (not the "%", though) to make it effective.
> 
> Take care!
> 
> # this is a comment,
> #1000 means UID 1000,
> #include is a directive.
> 
> People hit this snag in apparmor files too.
> 
> > How did you (Jerry) end up with this configuration?  This is not
> > normal as far as I know.  I can't imagine any Debian developer wrote
> > a postinst script that would comment out individual lines in the
> > /etc/sudoers file.
> > 
> > I'm guessing there is more to this story than you're telling us.  Either
> > you didn't install Debian (perhaps you installed Raspbian or something),
> > or you modified the sudoers file during or after the installation, or
> > you inherited this system from someone else who modified it....
> 
> It might be helpful for the output of this command to be posted:
> 
>     ls --full-time /etc/sudoers /etc/sudoers.d/
> 
> (It will need sudo or root.)

Silly me. Using the code sudouse[r] ≡ /etc/sudoers, the OP states in their
OP that they have edited the file after every one of their installations.
(Not that I was interested enough to do a full post mortem on their report.)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229827

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:08:32PM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> Here is the sudoers contents.
> 
> 
> /etc/sudoers
> 
> # User privilege specification
> root	ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
> 
> # Allow members of group sudo to execute any command
> sudo	ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL

I think there's a percent sign missing there, like so:

%sudo  ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL

since it is referring to users in the group sudo.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229826

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:05:26PM -0500, Jerry Mellon wrote:
> I installed the Debian 10 64bit from the disks(16) that I purchased. No
> down load from outside involved.
> Jerry
> 
> PS  Not trying to cause a problem, just telling you what I had to todo.

Why should you? I think everyone welcomes a comment like you made :-)

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229850

On Fri 18 Dec 2020 at 13:05:26 (-0500), Jerry Mellon wrote:
> I installed the Debian 10 64bit from the disks(16) that I purchased. No
> down load from outside involved.
> PS  Not trying to cause a problem, just telling you what I had to todo.

I'm sure you're posting in good faith. The problem is that we don't
know anything about your system without your telling us, and when
what you report doesn't seem likely, then it helps if you would
post some uninterpreted evidence.

That's why I asked you to post the output of this command:
  ls --full-time /etc/sudoers /etc/sudoers.d/
The dates and sizes of the files will help us determine whether
the /etc/sudoers file has been edited, and by whom¹. Since around
the time of squeeze, this file should never require editing on
99% of Debian systems, on account of its last line and the
existence of the /etc/sudoers.d/ directory.

If you don't post some evidence like that, then it's difficult for
me to believe other than that you misunderstood the choices you made
with the root password/ability for root to login, and tried to
compensate by using, unfortunately, the wrong commands and actions,
which made it harder to understand the problem.

¹ Note that it is always most helpful to cut and paste the
  actual commands and their responses into your posts,
  obviously mangling any confidential bits.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229862

Hello,

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 11:32:33AM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> I noticed that if you add yourself to sudo group in /etc/group you
> have to logout and log back in for it to be noticed.

If you don't want to log out of the shell you can do this:

$ exec sg sudo "newgrp $(id -ng)"

The "exec" causes what follows to replace the current shell. Without
this you'd end up with two extra shells running and would have to
"exit" three times to close them.

"sg sudo" causes the following command to be executed with primary
group of "sudo".

"newgrp $(id -ng)" puts you back in your original primary group,
leaving you with group "sudo" as an additional group.

You can just do "newgroup sudo" but this:

- starts an extra shell so you'd have to "exit" it twice

- leaves you with "sudo" as your primary group

You can just do "su - $USER" but this will ask you for your
password.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229882

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 05:03:40PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 11:32:33AM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> > I noticed that if you add yourself to sudo group in /etc/group you
> > have to logout and log back in for it to be noticed.
> 
> If you don't want to log out of the shell you can do this:
> 
> $ exec sg sudo "newgrp $(id -ng)"

Of course this only gives you the new privileges in that one shell,
not in all of your other windows, not in any other programs that are
already running, and not in any future programs that are invoked as a
child of an already-running process (such as your window manager).

> The "exec" causes what follows to replace the current shell. Without
> this you'd end up with two extra shells running and would have to
> "exit" three times to close them.

> You can just do "su - $USER" but this will ask you for your
> password.

I sometimes use  exec su - "$LOGNAME"  if I only need the new privileges
in a single shell, and am willing to defer the full logout/login cycle.

"$USER" will work as a substitute for "$LOGNAME" in a typical interactive
shell, but it's worth knowing that this is not a standard variable under
Linux, and may not always be available in all execution environments.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web