From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  2 06:04:01 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EC837B401
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  2 Jun 2003 06:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from otter3.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7127543F85
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  2 Jun 2003 06:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from anderson@centtech.com)
Received: from centtech.com (dhcp-187.centtech.com [204.177.173.187])
	by otter3.centtech.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h52D3x56010733;
	Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:03:59 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from anderson@centtech.com)
Message-ID: <3EDB4AE0.8060408@centtech.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:02:24 -0500
From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US;
	rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Support <support@netmint.com>
References: <20030602085600.B84160@alice.netmint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: quick poppassd question
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:04:01 -0000

Support wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I did a quick change to the patched port of poppassd and am wondering if
> you think my code would introduce any potential problems.
> 
> The idea is right after we check if the username exists, also check if the
> UID of that username is over 1000. I wanted to make sure that no one
> monkeys around with priveleged users once poppassd is running.
> 
> So, the middle chunk of code is mine, everything else has been there
> before me.
> 
> What's the general feeling about the security of poppassd provided that
> users with valid passwords already have shell access to the system, and
> now nobody can try to change priveleged accounts' passwords?

I usually don't give pop user's shell access, unless they really need 
it.  That's just me though.

> --- cut ---
> 
>      if ((pw = getpwnam (user)) == NULL)
>      {
>           syslog (LOG_ERR, "Unknown user, %s", user);
>           sleep (5);
>           WriteToClient ("500 Old password is incorrect.");
>           exit(1);
>      }
> 
>      /* begin added code */
>      if ((pw->pw_uid) < 1001)
>      {
>           syslog (LOG_ERR, "Priveleged user, %s", user);
>           sleep (5);
>           WriteToClient ("500 Old password is incorrect.");

Wouldn't it be better to send a more descriptive error message back? 
Maybe something like "500 Denied for priveleged user"?

Eric


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson	   Systems Administrator      Centaur Technology
Attitudes are contagious, is yours worth catching?
------------------------------------------------------------------