From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 22 22:06:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5660616A4CE; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.SNVACAID.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E0243D1F; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:06:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tim@kientzle.com) Received: from kientzle.com (54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54] (may be forged)) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1N66HkX090141; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:06:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tim@kientzle.com) Message-ID: <40399858.8060506@kientzle.com> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:06:16 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031006 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz References: <200402221003.i1MA3PW0024791@repoman.freebsd.org> <403944D8.6050107@kientzle.com> <20040223025647.GA43467@VARK.homeunix.com> <40397824.3080607@kientzle.com> <20040223052110.GA58255@VARK.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20040223052110.GA58255@VARK.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Colin Percival Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/nologin Makefile nologin.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: kientzle@acm.org List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:06:18 -0000 David Schultz wrote: > > One unfortunate side-effect [of dynamic /bin is that] custom > versions of nologin that people have written as shell scripts are > now insecure. Is there any reason why "login -p" should be permitted if the user's shell is not listed in /etc/shells ? chpass already enforces a clear distinction between "standard" and "non-standard" shells. It seems reasonable for login(1) to also be aware of that distinction. Tim