[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Strange sudoers problem.

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> wrote:

> At Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:09:56 -0500 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for
> general discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > I have an odd problem with sudoers. Recently, I've tried to make use of
> > /etc/sudoers.d/ rather than editing /etc/sudoers itself. This, in theory,
> > should ensure that future upgrades to sudo will not munge my additions by
> > leaving the stock /etc/sudoers intact. Research has lead me to believe
> that
> > files in /etc/sudoers.d/ need to be dot files (I.E. a "hidden" file) and
> > need to be mode 0440. I have done both of these things, however, the
> groups
> > I define for sudo access in my /etc/sudoers.d/.devops.sudoers file are
> not
> > processed, even after a reboot. Anyone else have this problem?
> Hidden? Nope. "Hidden" only make sense in $HOME (and other places that
> *users*
> will be commonly running ls, like code trees [think .git or .svn]), as a
> kludge to "hide" them and avoid a long/cluttered file listings. According
> to
> the README in that directory, the filenames must NOT *contain* a period
> (not
> sure why) or end in ~ (eg editor backup files [Duh]).
> Mode 0440, yes.  And yes, anything you drop in /etc/sudoers.d/ won't be
> touched by updates.  And there needs to be at least one file in that
> directory
> (the README file will do).

Thank you! I'll try that.

Wynona Stacy Lockwood
stacy at guppylog.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20180702/465664f6/attachment.html>