I am in no way a fan of the Failing New York Times (if I may quote a prominent contemporary statesman), but am I missing something by thinking that this is overblown? They haven't printed his name, only asked if they may do so. I also don't see where they threatened him with exposure, but the article claims they have.
Except that I don't trust Telegram because they seem to ship a marketing-first, cryptography-later sort of product. IIRC initially their "E2E encryption" could be decrypted on the server. In contrast, Signal seems to put strong encryption first.
Facts are that whatever e2e encryption telegram allegedly offers needs to be invoked per-conversation as a 'secret chat' and is not availabe on dekstops, normal conversations are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -encrypted
> It could also mean recovering the access to root,
No! Even for me as a non native speaker this is obvious since I have worked in the field for a few years.
A car is a vehicle but saying that "a vehicle means a car is wrong".
In the same way recovering access to the root account might give you the same effect as recovering the password, but often not.
This is a situation were correct wording isn't hard and a situation where it matters in my opinion. People come here to learn and we shouldn't mislead them especially when the cost of fixing it is trivial.
If I recover the access to root, fine, I have access to that machine.
If I recover the root password I have access to all that the root password gives me access to.
On systems where for example home or certain configuration files are encrypted using the password as a key (yes, a bit simplified), this is the difference between getting access to the data or not.
> this is just splitting hair anyway.
No. This is trying to avoid potentially costly misunderstandings.
That might technically be true, but as far as I know, with my setup, if I reset my Linux password and use the new password to access my account, my data will be gone as the home folder encryption key was encrypted with my password or something to that effect.
Now I cannot say for sure that this is possible on the root account as well - I've hardly used the actual root account since Ubuntu taught me otherwise in 2006 - but I see no obvious reason why you shouldn't be able to encrypt roots home folder the same way we encrypt other home folders.
I'm interested in knowing though in case I'm missing something.
If you’re encrypting your whole disk (encrypting /root doesn’t give you any benefit) then you will need to enter your passphrase before your system gets as far as reading /etc/shadow.
So that guide basically assumes you either already know your decryption passphrase or you don’t have full disk encryption. In either case, changing roots password wouldn’t lock you out of the root file system
I've never seen a system set up where root's home folder is encrypted. But also you wouldn't run the system as root normally, so there shouldn't be anything in the root folder to be lost even if that was the case. Getting access so you can fix what's not working is the primary reason for wanting root if you've somehow lost the password, or sudo broke, etc.
That's ecryptfs. It's no longer supported by newer versions of Ubuntu. The key is not your password. It's somehow protected by a pam module I believe to remember. I once noticed that being root allows you to su into their account, but not decrypting their home directory. So possibly the encryption key is encrypted using the password. One might need the old password to reencrypt the encryption key with the new password.
I had no interest to dig deeper, so I am not sure.
And I already said there’s no point encrypting /root. “Root” isn’t a user you should be using day to day so the root home directory should be mostly empty.
Thus if an attacker has root access then it’s literally everything else apart from /root that you need to be worried about. Hence why I discuss disk encryption.
In a literal sense you're right but the end result is ostensibly same (ie you've gained root access). Sure the title could have been more accurate but the OPs claim of "false advertising" is just as exaggerative and frankly it's dumb that instead of congratulating someone for a helpful walk-through people are arguing semantics about the fucking title.
Ironically I’ve tried not to be negative towards you (eg saying “you might be more experienced than the target audience”) and you’ve still taken my comments like a personal attack. So imagine how harshly your actual negativity would have been received by the content creator you’ve been targeting.
This is why I say it’s hard creating useful content for the web. Everyone is quick to attack but very few people are there to support. It’s a problem we should be even more accurately aware of during these difficult times of being on lockdown.
Obviously there will be times when constructive criticisms need to be raised but use of language is important — which I know is the same point you were making at the start but it’s just as relevant to you as it is the author. In fact HNs own policies ask that people write their corrections politely and constructively too.
I was under the impression that it disables it on a deeper level since disabling Camera, for instance, disallows apps (like Snapchat) from accessing the camera even if you'd previously given Snapchat camera permissions.
