From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 31 00:08:57 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A23136D for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6414E5B for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.41]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB3E33C46; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 019FC3983C; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:08:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: Slawa Olhovchenkov Subject: Re: ftpd don't record login in utmpx References: <20150330142543.GD74532@zxy.spb.ru> Reply-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:08:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150330142543.GD74532@zxy.spb.ru> (Slawa Olhovchenkov's message of "Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:25:43 +0300") Message-ID: <44y4me9gfi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:08:57 -0000 Slawa Olhovchenkov writes: > ftpd from FreeBSD-10 and up don't record ftp logins to utmpx database > (for case of chrooted login). > This is lack security information. > I found this is done by r202209 and r202604. > I can't understand reason of this. > Can somebody explain? Having a jail log into the base system is a security issue in the making. Can't you do this in a safer way by doing remote logging to the base system rather than having the jail hold on to a file handle that belongs outside the jail? It's certainly possible to maintain these kinds of capabilities, but you would have to convince code reviewers that the same results can't be achieved some other way that's easier to secure.