From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 24 16:17:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D2216A4CE; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E7243D1D; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:17:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru) Received: from pobrecita.freebsd.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i1ONxO3F032789; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:59:24 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by pobrecita.freebsd.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i1ONxNf3032788; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:59:23 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:59:22 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20040224235920.GA32548@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , John Baldwin , kientzle@acm.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Colin Percival References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040223171828.03de8b30@imap.sfu.ca> <200402231553.34677.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <403A7DD0.2090802@kientzle.com> <200402241027.58978.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402241027.58978.jhb@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.6; AVE 6.24.0.4; VDF 6.24.0.17 cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Colin Percival cc: kientzle@acm.org Subject: Re: What to do about nologin(8)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:17:48 -0000 On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:27:58AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > Armoring nologin(8) is insufficient. Yes. > > In particular, as David Schultz pointed out, there are a lot > > of home-grown nologin scripts out there that are potentially > > vulnerable regardless of what we do with the "official" > > nologin program. > > Then do both. :) People please be aware that it is not nologin problem at all, so please not touch nologin in this direction. F.e. any 3rd party shell from ports or any home-grown admin shells/scripts _generally_ suffer of this problem. It means that login, telnetd, su etc. whatever log in and call shell should be fixed to never pas LD_* variables to the shell. Don't pick one particular shell (nologin) and think you are secure. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/