Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:55:55 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: 10.1 BETA2 World - Breaks saslauthd Message-ID: <54258C8B.90709@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86ppeieu4t.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <b492e700f57a52e21f7755e6d01bd863.squirrel@www.tundraware.com> <3DA4B666-AB81-4F25-ABAE-DDC163F41E20@FreeBSD.org> <542430EB.1040804@tundraware.com> <CAKFCL4WX1gDJFLuJwvSKBX%2B0eKM4OwahXkDqEO84NqiY=eHDCw@mail.gmail.com> <86ppeieu4t.fsf@nine.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/09/2014 10:08, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Brandon Allbery <allbery.b@gmail.com> writes: >> To me the implication is that before the MFC, PAM had a potentially >> quite severe security issue involving either incorrect fallback to a >> default configuration or not correctly handling error returns from a >> PAM stack --- either of which could result in unauthorized users being >> permitted access. > > No, that's a different issue. This patch fixes a potential segfault > (see http://bugs.freebsd.org/83099). However, I have recevied reports > that gdm (amongst others) actually want to be able to call > pam_login_access without a host or tty. The following patch makes that > possible: > > Index: lib/libpam/modules/pam_login_access/pam_login_access.c > =================================================================== > --- lib/libpam/modules/pam_login_access/pam_login_access.c (revision 272101) > +++ lib/libpam/modules/pam_login_access/pam_login_access.c (working copy) > @@ -94,8 +94,10 @@ > PAM_VERBOSE_ERROR("%s is not allowed to log in on %s", > user, tty); > } else { > - PAM_VERBOSE_ERROR("PAM_RHOST or PAM_TTY required"); > - return (PAM_AUTHINFO_UNAVAIL); > + PAM_LOG("Checking login.access for user %s", user); > + if (login_access(user, "***unknown***") != 0) > + return (PAM_SUCCESS); > + PAM_VERBOSE_ERROR("%s is not allowed to log in", user); > } > > return (PAM_AUTH_ERR); > > Please test and report as soon as possible so I can get it into 10. BTW, I think that chatted about this topic (no host, no tty) a long time ago and back then you suggested that PAM_IGNORE could be returned for that combination. I do not know much about PAM, so I can't evaluate neither the current code nor that hypothetical alternative. So, this is just a reminder about some old ideas. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54258C8B.90709>