50 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
50 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
Defaults !requiretty
|
|
user ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL
|
|
|
|
# WTF?! Have you lost your mind?!
|
|
#
|
|
# In Qubes VMs there is no point in isolating the root account from
|
|
# the user account. This is because all the user data are already
|
|
# accessible from the user account, so there is no direct benefit for
|
|
# the attacker if she could escalate to root (there is even no benefit
|
|
# in trying to install some persistent rootkits, as the VM's root
|
|
# filesystem modifications are lost upon each start of a VM).
|
|
#
|
|
# One might argue that some hypothetical attacks against the
|
|
# hypervisor or the few daemons/backends in Dom0 (so VM escape
|
|
# attacks) most likely would require root access in the VM to trigger
|
|
# the attack.
|
|
#
|
|
# That's true, but mere existence of such a bug in the hypervisor or
|
|
# Dom0 that could be exploited by a malicious VM, no matter whether
|
|
# requiring user, root, or even kernel access in the VM, would be
|
|
# FATAL. In such situation (if there was such a bug in Xen) there
|
|
# really is no comforting that: "oh, but the mitigating factor was
|
|
# that the attacker needed root in VM!" We're not M$, and we're not
|
|
# gonna BS our users that there are mitigating factors in that case,
|
|
# and for sure, root/user isolation is not a mitigating factor.
|
|
#
|
|
# Because, really, if somebody could find and exploit a bug in the Xen
|
|
# hypervisor -- so far there has been only one (!) publicly disclosed
|
|
# exploitable bug in the Xen hypervisor from a VM, found in 2008,
|
|
# incidentally by one of the Qubes developers (RW) -- then it would be
|
|
# highly unlikely that that person couldn't also find a user-to-root
|
|
# escalation in the VM (which as we know from history of UNIX/Linux
|
|
# happens all the time).
|
|
#
|
|
# At the same time allowing for easy user-to-root escalation in a VM
|
|
# is simply convenient for users, especially for update installation.
|
|
#
|
|
# Currently this still doesn't work as expected, because some idotic
|
|
# piece of software called PolKit uses own set of policies. We're
|
|
# planning to address this in Beta 2. (Why PolKit is an idiocy? Do a
|
|
# simple experiment: start 'xinput test' in one xterm, running as
|
|
# user, then open some app that uses PolKit and asks for root
|
|
# password, e.g. gpk-update-viewer -- observe how all the keystrokes
|
|
# with root password you enter into the "secure" PolKit dialog box can
|
|
# be seen by the xinput program...)
|
|
#
|
|
# joanna.
|
|
|
|
# vim: ft=sudoers
|