From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 31 13:18:43 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DFB16A41C for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 13:18:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dhartmei@insomnia.benzedrine.cx) Received: from insomnia.benzedrine.cx (insomnia.benzedrine.cx [62.65.145.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51F843D1F for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 13:18:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dhartmei@insomnia.benzedrine.cx) Received: from insomnia.benzedrine.cx (dhartmei@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insomnia.benzedrine.cx (8.13.3/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4VDIgEx001381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 31 May 2005 15:18:42 +0200 (MEST) Received: (from dhartmei@localhost) by insomnia.benzedrine.cx (8.13.4/8.12.10/Submit) id j4VDIg9r004902; Tue, 31 May 2005 15:18:42 +0200 (MEST) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:18:42 +0200 From: Daniel Hartmeier To: Jonathan Weiss Message-ID: <20050531131842.GD16010@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> References: <20050531102855.GA40275@lordsith.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Cc: FreeBSD-PF Subject: Re: authpf does authenticate but gives no shell X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:18:43 -0000 On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Jonathan Weiss wrote: > As far as I know, authpf is only for authentification. This means that it > will activate you rules, nothing more. It is not a shell or will it fork to > your shell. > > You need a second SSH connection for this. With a second user id, which has a real shell, yes. Some people would argue that you shouldn't give out interactive shells ON THE FIREWALL ITSELF. > Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong. No, that's correct. Working as intended. :) Daniel