<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Thomas Sluyter wrote: <blockquote cite="midF6AB67A9-745F-4F6B-B2BC-B5256E343DC6@kilala.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 4 Sep, 2006, at 12:09, Hari Sekhon wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Alexander Harvey wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Note to Hari: my understanding is that sudo won't work for account that doesn't have a valid shell. Certainly all my testing led me to that conclusion. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">So it would seem that this is not correct. A valid shell is not required. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Actually, to nitpick a little :) I'd think it's entirely possible that sudo requires a valid shell, just like FTP and such. But in that case "valid" would mean "listed in /etc/shells" and not "working like a normal shell"... I'd have to check the man-page to be sure though.. Cheers! </pre> </blockquote> /bin/false isn't listed as a valid shell on my nagios box and this still works. hmm. Also, you could use sudo -s /bin/bash check_command so that you get the shell for that one command. The man page says you can use this to override the system set shell. If you find anything written anywhere about this then let me know. It's entirely possible that different versions have different quirks, this is not unknown in unixland... fyi my sudo -V gives me the version as "Sudo version 1.6.8p9" (lots of extras output omitted) -h </body> </html>