From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 21 20:30:08 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DF13E5 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.sdf.org", Issuer "SDF.ORG" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A199533A1 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from otaku.freeshell.org (IDENT:case@otaku.freeshell.org [192.94.73.9]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7LKTSUb028999 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256 bits) verified NO); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:29:33 GMT Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:29:28 +0000 (UTC) From: John Case X-X-Sender: case@faeroes.freeshell.org To: Arthur Chance Subject: Re: Did /nonexistent go away in FreeBSD 9 ? In-Reply-To: <53F59BD2.8010902@qeng-ho.org> Message-ID: References: <53F59BD2.8010902@qeng-ho.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:30:08 -0000 On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Arthur Chance wrote: >> I also have securelevel=2 ... >> >> So, did something change with /nonexistent in FreeBSD 9, or does >> securelevel=2 screw this up somehow ?? > > The entire point about /nonexistent is that it is nonexistent. The problem was the securelevel=2. If you have securelevel=2 set, the username for an ssh tunnel cannot log in and set up the tunnel with a shell of /nonexistent. I have no idea why - ssh tunnel failed with a message taht the home directory did not exist ... which is correct, since it shouldn't exist. I removed the securelevel setting and it worked perfectly (the ssh tunnel). I have no idea why the securelevel setting would cause this... Any ideas ? I would actually like to set securelevel=2, but I also need my ssh tunnel to work ...