Should network owners have access to all server shells?

mjd · none Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 38

I'd simply like to get input from other network owners/administrators to see what you think about this. In my opinion, network owners/administrators should definitaly have shell access to all boxes linked to their network. Is this not a requirement for most networks? I used to be with a network that is now ranked in the top10 networks and I know they had this requirement in place. What do you guys think?

FBI

mjd · none Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 38

So you're saying that either 1.) the network owners/admins, or 2.) the tech team should have access to all shells on their network? The thing I'm wondering is what's more popular? Networks where the server administrator is the only person with access to his server and he does everything on it himself, or otherwise.

Anthrax · none Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 22

heh just enable remote includes then u can modify something once the rehash all the servers

Jason · Posted: Apr 19, 2006 7:40pm Post subject:

I use to run the IRC servers for AT&T. I can tell you right now that there would be no way for anyone who didn't work for AT&T to get access to the box.

mjd · none Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 38

Maybe I stated my question wrong. I'm wanting to know, from a network owner/administrator standpoint, if you require access to all shells linked to your network. Or would you link a server that didn't want to give you access to the server's shell?

Aven · Idler Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 393

I'd say it's not necassary really.

If there's a server administrator that's barely active or is barely even around, asking him/her for shell access is a good thing in case something goes wrong or the ircd needs an upgrade.

I don't think it'd be a good idea to require access when linking a server. Although, if a server admin links and is barely around or is barely active *and* refuses to give you access, then there would be no point of having him/her linked anymore.

katsklaw · Posted: Apr 19, 2006 9:46pm Post subject:

PingBad · Posted: Apr 19, 2006 10:25pm Post subject:

Scire · Newbie Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 84 Location: IRC

mentor · Posted: Apr 20, 2006 1:50pm Post subject:

I have to agree with the last few posts -- it isn't necessary. When I ran servers for 2 of the top 5/10 networks it was not an issue. You should be able to depend on your server admins to make any necessary changes.

And, like Jason stated, most of your larger providers will not give access to anyone who is not an employee. This was also the case for me.

mjd · none Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 38

I certainly appreciate your responses guys. Purhaps I was simply misdirected for the last 4-7 (who's counting) years. Anyways, thanks again for your posts.

MOVIEBOT · Lurker Joined: 24 May 2004 Posts: 229 Location: Poland

i am netadmin myself and before allowing servers to link i tell them routing must have all shell access or your server will not be acepted. we just ask for shell access incase ur server goes down to restart it and other maintenance upgrades we might do.

mjd · none Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 38

MOVIEBOT, do none of your server admins have a problem with this? If not, about how many servers do you have linked? Are they all people you've known for a while, or do you have some random links as well?

Anthrax · none Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 22

noone should have access if the servers are set up right, netadmins can restart a unreal server online, addlines to the config, and if a server went down and it needs to be restarted well then one would add a crontab for the server, there u go, you dont need access to everyones shell, it tends to make them feel dumb that they cant do the job them selves.

put the shoe on the other foot, would you give someone ur shell details? i think not lol.

i guess if the shoe fit, wear it