You're viewing a single thread.
Why should I use
doasinstead ofsudo? It's not even less typing.It is a much simpler program than sudo. A simpler and less complicated implementation means less vulnerabilities.
sudo had some serious vulnerabilities in the past: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2021/01/27/cve-2021-3156/
Can you actually remove sudo from a system without breaking stuff? I can image there's some stuff, scripts etc that depends on it. Unless you can alias it away?
I use my Linux system without sudo, it does break some (badly written) scripts. You can fix it by either creating a symlink in your path or replacing sudo to doas on those scripts.
But I rarely encounter these issues. Usually system applications won't be affecting by a missing sudo binary, as their privileges are typically managed by polkit or similar.
Depends on the system.
Used doas for about 4 years now and never had an issue like that. The default config passes environment variables differently to sudo, but after I added the correct setting for that to doas.conf it has been identical to sudo in everything.
If it caused issues for you you could link sudo to doas in bin, no script should ever use sudo -i right?
Yeah, I really don't get why one is supposed to be better than the other.
Maybe doas gives you superer user privileges.
sudo is complex with a lot of code and options.
doas is small, simple & secure from OpenBSD.
If all you want is root priv without remembering two passwords on your box, doas is fine. If you want a complex system of admins and users with fine grained permission control sudo may be a better option.
I use ' su -' much of the time and just use a root shell.
Actively replacing sudo with doas on an OS that includes sudo in the base system seems pointless imo.