From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 31 03:44:12 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 214F8829 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBE10A45 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:44:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ycn5u-000LrZ-IA for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:44:02 +0300 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:44:02 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ftpd don't record login in utmpx Message-ID: <20150331034402.GE74532@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20150330142543.GD74532@zxy.spb.ru> <44y4me9gfi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44y4me9gfi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false 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 03:44:12 -0000 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 08:08:49PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > 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? Jail? Why I you talk about 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. Can you explain some more? A im lost point.