From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 20 16:26: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D87D37B404 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:26:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0L0Q0U27952; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:26:01 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:25:58 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Mark Murray , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Step5, pam_opie OPIE auth fix for review Message-ID: <20020121002557.GB27831@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20020120220254.GA25886@nagual.pp.ru> <200201202314.g0KNEDt34526@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20020120233050.GA26913@nagual.pp.ru> <20020121000446.GB27206@nagual.pp.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:17:44 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > That's what PAM is for. If fixed (not necessary plaintext!) passwords > are allowed, the admin will mark pam_opie as "sufficient" and place > pam_unix below it; if they're not, he'll just remove pam_unix. It not allows flexible configuration because it is not depends on remote host for example. I.e. for some host pam_unix can be chained, but for some another - not. > The current system, BTW, leaves the policy in the hands of the user, > as she can create or remove ~/.opie_always at will. A security policy > which is based on letting the user decide what is sufficient > authentication and what is not is not a proper security policy. No, by creating ~/.opiealways user can only _increase_ its own security level additionly to pre-setted by sysadmin for him, and can't _decrease_ it. > Actually, that idea won't work, because PAM will ignore PAM_AUTH_ERR > from a "sufficient" module. A "requisite" helper module, placed after > pam_opie, which fails if ~/.opie_always exists would do the trick, if > one really wanted this. ~/.opiealways checked only if opieaccess() found remote host in the /etc/opieaccess table. Yes, this check can be done as separate PAM module, but why two modules in the same area instead of one? -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message