I haven’t really used Linux, but I feel it might be useful for a potential project. Is it possible, and how doable is it, to have a password locked admin account and an open user account which is heavily restricted on what they can do? As in, not even browse files. Preferrably only desktop access where they can launch the apps placed there. Which Linux would be the best for this while still being on the easier side to figure out? I do understand tech somewhat well and quite enjoy problem solving, so doesn’t need to be ELI5 territory.
Yeah, Linux was built as a multi-user system, so user and group permissions have always been a core aspect of it. The “password locked admin account” is just the
rootuser, although you should maybe leave that as a “failsafe” account and create a separate user withsudoer permissions. Every file and folder in Linux has an owner and read/write/execute permissions for the owner, members of its group, and others. By default, users are limited to their own home folder (/home/username, where folders like Documents are stored) and a handful of world-writable locations (like/tmp) If you need more specific permissions, ACLs are also available. Or SELinux.The biggest difference regarding distribution choice is that some distros ship with SELinux enabled, while most don’t. For everything else there’s not much difference, so maybe start with Debian for its community support/resources?
Thanks for the advice! The premission stuff sounds perfect. So by default, basic account can’t really mess anything up, even if it’s a tech literate person using it?
In theory if there are no security holes, a user account can only mess up its own account.
Note that what steps you want to take will really depend on who these users are and what you want to achieve. There’s a vast chasm between allowing in, say, friends or colleagues, vs. letting random people on the internet access it. The latter will mean someone will intentionally look for exploits, which means e.g. regularly applying security updates becomes far more pressing.
If you are letting in random strangers, I’d look into only giving them access within a separate container or ideally virtual machine per user as an extra precaution unless what you’re making available is very stripped down.
From past experiences, the worst I’m expecting is kids that think they know what hacking is because of some whacky Tiktok or Youtube video they saw. So there may be some intention to mess with things, it’s just not very likely they truly know what they’re doing. There won’t be internet involved, hopefully.
I like the idea of a separate container or the like, will need to look into it, thanks.
If it’s not connected to the internet, that certainly does take away a significant cause of problems. Good luck
Correct, users that are not explicitly configured as
sudoersare limited both in files they can access and commands they can run.Awesome!
Along with the restrictions others have mentioned, you could look at running your system as a “live” install:
- Actual OS boots directly off media like a USB stick or DVD
- Operating system is mounted “read only” - even the super admin can’t change files in the root partition
- Even if a clever user finds a way to run programs, their changes don’t persist after a reboot
- If you need some persistence (eg, allowing users to save documents) you could mount a network share as the /home partition, but mount it “noexec” so if users manage to download programs from the internet, they aren’t able to run them
