[illusive4080]

Some at work want to let me run sudo vim only to edit my hosts file. This is silly for a variety of reasons, one of them being that vim can allow the user to exec arbitrary commands. If you give me root for vim, just save me the trouble and let me have unrestricted root so I can do my job.

[bauruine]

I had the same few years ago. When I pointed out that I can get full root with most of the whitelisted commands they answered "We know. It's not about security but to prevent lusers from accidentally rm -rf /* the server. Feel free to spawn a root shell. You obviously know what you do"

[CableNinja]

I deal with some regulated things and some users who usually wouldnt be allowed to see/work on a thing are granted special access to do so, with extreme limitations. Recently i was approached asking if we could strip down the users desktops to no gui, no sudo, for use as a jumpbox. I explained why users need sudo to do what they need, and was asked about limiting sudo.

Its really tough to tell someone who is all about security (not linux security but regulatory security and such) that basically granting any bit of sudo access can lead to full access.

There is a way that this can be handled, but its honestly sort of an afterthought functionality. facls. You can delegate multiple owners/groups and permissions for things, and it can work well, but you have to deal with facls on multiple fronts, setting them for basically the entire system. facls are great, in theory, but they feel like such an afterthought that they are often ignored.

[bloppe]

You could provide decently meaningful and targeted sandboxing using mount namespaces and an overlay FS, while retaining sudo privileges for what you need to do.