From owner-freebsd-security Wed Jul 7 18:50:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.36.247]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D56D14EF1 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:50:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au) Received: from bragg (bragg [129.127.36.34]) by adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8/UofA-1.5) with SMTP id LAA25451; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:20:16 +0930 (CST) Received: from localhost by bragg; (5.65/1.1.8.2/05Aug95-0227PM) id AA14646; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:19:56 +0930 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:19:56 +0930 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway X-Sender: kkennawa@bragg To: Ladavac Marino Cc: "'Josef Karthauser'" , Brian Somers , Mark Thomas , freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Wayne Self Subject: Credential storage (was RE: userland ppp - startup) In-Reply-To: <55586E7391ACD211B9730000C11002761796DA@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Ladavac Marino wrote: > > Hmm... how to do this then? The sppp setup code in rc.* allows > > username/password > > to be specified. Can it be done in the environment then? (If rc.conf > > is visable > > then the sppp config gives usernames and passwords away as it stands > > today.) > [ML] Don't know about sppp, but the only halfway secure way to > keep this sensitive data is in a file readable by root, and having the > program which needs it setuid root. Sounds a lot like > /etc/ppp/ppp.conf, doesn't it? > > The secure way would be not keeping the info at all :) You know, I wonder if it's time to look at providing a generic credential storage registry; things like password hashes, PPP shared secrets, etc, could be stored here instead of in lots of separate files. So user account passwords could point to a SHA-1 hash in the registry, ppp shared secrets would point to an NT and/or LM hash, samba accounts could have an associated NT/LM hash, etc. More than one hash could be associated with any given entity. The modules which manipulate individual credentials (hashes) would be pluggable along the lines of PAM. What do people think - is this worth pursuing? Kris ----- "Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes, because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes." -- Unknown To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message