Limit Linux/root-possibility to one admin at a time











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












For a Linux (RHEL7) host on which multiple admin's have 'sudo -i' root-possibility, is there an easy way to force that only one of them may use this privilege at a time?



I.e. what I want; if one admin is root by 'sudo -i', another admin that tries this at the same time will be rejected - until the first admin exit's.



Or is using a (local?) password-vault-ish solution the only way?






linux







share|improve this question







New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Does this work? limit users
    – number9
    2 days ago












  • It is a question for other topics - ethics, moral or somthing like this. If you include some users into sudoers you must believe, that they are at a sufficient level of decent behavior. They can immediately after login ask who or w to see if somone else is solving the problem. It seems to me much more simle to choose better sudoers then blocking them by logging priority.
    – schweik
    2 days ago










  • Reason for my question is auditability; TTY-audit to an external location is effective, but if more users are logged in with root, the one that kills the process for audit-transfer can thereafter do what he/she wants (with the local audit-logs) - and hence cannot be identified.
    – Ulli
    21 hours ago















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












For a Linux (RHEL7) host on which multiple admin's have 'sudo -i' root-possibility, is there an easy way to force that only one of them may use this privilege at a time?



I.e. what I want; if one admin is root by 'sudo -i', another admin that tries this at the same time will be rejected - until the first admin exit's.



Or is using a (local?) password-vault-ish solution the only way?






linux







share|improve this question







New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Does this work? limit users
    – number9
    2 days ago












  • It is a question for other topics - ethics, moral or somthing like this. If you include some users into sudoers you must believe, that they are at a sufficient level of decent behavior. They can immediately after login ask who or w to see if somone else is solving the problem. It seems to me much more simle to choose better sudoers then blocking them by logging priority.
    – schweik
    2 days ago










  • Reason for my question is auditability; TTY-audit to an external location is effective, but if more users are logged in with root, the one that kills the process for audit-transfer can thereafter do what he/she wants (with the local audit-logs) - and hence cannot be identified.
    – Ulli
    21 hours ago













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











For a Linux (RHEL7) host on which multiple admin's have 'sudo -i' root-possibility, is there an easy way to force that only one of them may use this privilege at a time?



I.e. what I want; if one admin is root by 'sudo -i', another admin that tries this at the same time will be rejected - until the first admin exit's.



Or is using a (local?) password-vault-ish solution the only way?






linux







share|improve this question







New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











For a Linux (RHEL7) host on which multiple admin's have 'sudo -i' root-possibility, is there an easy way to force that only one of them may use this privilege at a time?



I.e. what I want; if one admin is root by 'sudo -i', another admin that tries this at the same time will be rejected - until the first admin exit's.



Or is using a (local?) password-vault-ish solution the only way?






linux




linux






share|improve this question







New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









Ulli

1




1




New contributor




Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Ulli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Does this work? limit users
    – number9
    2 days ago












  • It is a question for other topics - ethics, moral or somthing like this. If you include some users into sudoers you must believe, that they are at a sufficient level of decent behavior. They can immediately after login ask who or w to see if somone else is solving the problem. It seems to me much more simle to choose better sudoers then blocking them by logging priority.
    – schweik
    2 days ago










  • Reason for my question is auditability; TTY-audit to an external location is effective, but if more users are logged in with root, the one that kills the process for audit-transfer can thereafter do what he/she wants (with the local audit-logs) - and hence cannot be identified.
    – Ulli
    21 hours ago


















  • Does this work? limit users
    – number9
    2 days ago












  • It is a question for other topics - ethics, moral or somthing like this. If you include some users into sudoers you must believe, that they are at a sufficient level of decent behavior. They can immediately after login ask who or w to see if somone else is solving the problem. It seems to me much more simle to choose better sudoers then blocking them by logging priority.
    – schweik
    2 days ago










  • Reason for my question is auditability; TTY-audit to an external location is effective, but if more users are logged in with root, the one that kills the process for audit-transfer can thereafter do what he/she wants (with the local audit-logs) - and hence cannot be identified.
    – Ulli
    21 hours ago
















Does this work? limit users
– number9
2 days ago






Does this work? limit users
– number9
2 days ago














It is a question for other topics - ethics, moral or somthing like this. If you include some users into sudoers you must believe, that they are at a sufficient level of decent behavior. They can immediately after login ask who or w to see if somone else is solving the problem. It seems to me much more simle to choose better sudoers then blocking them by logging priority.
– schweik
2 days ago




It is a question for other topics - ethics, moral or somthing like this. If you include some users into sudoers you must believe, that they are at a sufficient level of decent behavior. They can immediately after login ask who or w to see if somone else is solving the problem. It seems to me much more simle to choose better sudoers then blocking them by logging priority.
– schweik
2 days ago












Reason for my question is auditability; TTY-audit to an external location is effective, but if more users are logged in with root, the one that kills the process for audit-transfer can thereafter do what he/she wants (with the local audit-logs) - and hence cannot be identified.
– Ulli
21 hours ago




Reason for my question is auditability; TTY-audit to an external location is effective, but if more users are logged in with root, the one that kills the process for audit-transfer can thereafter do what he/she wants (with the local audit-logs) - and hence cannot be identified.
– Ulli
21 hours ago















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Ulli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482998%2flimit-linux-root-possibility-to-one-admin-at-a-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








Ulli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















Ulli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Ulli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Ulli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482998%2flimit-linux-root-possibility-to-one-admin-at-a-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

Image
4 Backstory: I have a Huawei HG8245 router in my house and I want to change the default username/password. I've tried following this guide but the config file always gets reset. My ISP isn't helping either so I'm looking for other ways to accomplish this. The router has telnet access so this seems like a way to change the credentials. The first shell I gain access to looks like this: WAP> Pressing "?" gives me a list of available commands which I've pasted here, the two interesting ones are "su" and "shell". I can't seem to get su access, even after logging in as root (challenge password prompt, and then nothing happens), but shell gives me a proper linux shell. WAP>shell BusyBox v1.18.4 (2017-12-26 17:06:34 CST) built-in shell (ash) Enter 'hel...
Read more

Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

Image
up vote 3 down vote favorite I have bluez 5.4.3 and I am attempting to communicate with a ble device through minicom. These two deceives (my computer and a bluno nano) are alreadt paired and this has been my method so far. #bluetoothctl # pair xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # exit Everything is working well so far then... #sudo rfcomm connect /dev/rfcomm0 xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx 1 & [1] 3665 Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down Does anyone know how to resolve this issue? Any help would be very much appreciated. bluetooth bluez share | improve this question asked Feb 9 '17 at 18:46 Brandon Knape 46 2 ...
Read more

Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt

Image
0 Every day this error occured on my pc, kernel panic error on interrupt, what will be the problem? linux-mint share asked 6 mins ago Vinod Selvin Vinod Selvin 1 1 New contributor Vinod Selvin 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 ...
Read more