Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:01:39 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Xin LI <d@delphij.net> Cc: Greg Rivers <gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org>, Mike Jakubik <mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com>, Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable ML <stable@freebsd.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: openssh in stable-10 broken config or sandbox Message-ID: <CAN6yY1sb5zT7H0bQkDbc4ZcL0SMuMARfJQ-p1qDkXnMg%2B1c47g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <53150EFF.5090007@delphij.net> References: <531184A8.4050909@freebsd.org> <53118E9C.5030804@freebsd.org> <5314D1F9.20909@intertainservices.com> <CAN6yY1tvr7F739%2BRxiVu8MjHo399=4VPHF9zw8WWKq16bMKVcA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1403031430380.20838@badger.tharned.org> <CAN6yY1sm3EYW5fnzH1HbU-CzzkT7Dyr5LovaLQWWkLdMqHEn3A@mail.gmail.com> <53150EFF.5090007@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks, Delphij! Better than what I asked for. This also induced me to fix my configuration to include GENERIC with five lines to modify it. I missed that capsicum had been made default. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 03/03/14 13:29, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Greg Rivers > > <gcr+freebsd-stable@tharned.org > >> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mike Jakubik < > >>> mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 03/01/14 02:39, Andrey Chernov wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 01.03.2014 10:56, Andrey Chernov wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi. > >>>>>> Default /etc/ssh/sshd_config have #UsePrivilegeSeparation > >>>>>> sandbox I.e. 'sandbox' by default. It breaks logins with > >>>>>> error: sshd[81721]: fatal: ssh_sandbox_child: failed to > >>>>>> limit the network socket [preauth] Fixed by using old > >>>>>> way, i.e. direct UsePrivilegeSeparation yes instead of > >>>>>> 'sandbox'. Please fix this bug. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just find that capsicum is required now for default (i.e. > >>>>>> sandbox) > >>>>> mode. Don't think it is wise move, people may lost remote > >>>>> connections that way, at least UPDATING entry is needed, > >>>>> but check for WITHOUT_CAPSICUM for defaults will be > >>>>> better. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Personally I find this to be a monumental screw up, such a > >>>>> drastic > >>>> change and not even so much as an entry in UPDATING, what > >>>> ever happened to POLA? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> I didn't get bitten by this by the good fortune of seeing the > >>> first message on this issue just minutes after I updated my > >>> system. Saw the change in mergemaster, so immediately edited > >>> the installed file back to "yes". But, if this had been a > >>> remote server, I would have been in deep weeds. This is simply > >>> not acceptable practice! > >>> > >>> > >> Not to disagree, but I think we should tone down the flogging of > >> a person who's working hard to make FreeBSD better. I'm sure > >> this wasn't intentional, and the change probably passed all of > >> his tests. If this were -RELEASE, I might feel differently, but > >> it is -STABLE after all. I do certainly agree that an UPDATING > >> entry would have been warranted. > >> > >> -- Greg > >> > > > > It was clearly intentional as it was specifically mentioned in the > > commit message. > > > > Oversights happen and I don't have a problem with that. If DES just > > didn't think about the fact that it would break sshd if capsicum > > was not available, that happens. I've made bigger mistakes, > > probably this week. The problem is that the change was not rolled > > back and no entry was made to UPDATING. > > > > It's been over 4 days and, even if DES is tied up and has not seen > > the issue, someone should have added t note to UPDATING so people > > have some warning that sshd will break in most cases if they just > > accept the change to sshd.conf. (Yes, it is not obvious who should > > have done this, but lots of folks have access to update UPDATING.) > > Lots of folks use STABLE in production. It's not HEAD and every > > effort is supposed to be made to not break things, or at least warn > > people if something will break running systems. > > I have just merged r261499 (pjd) as r262718 which should have fixed > this issue. r261499 tests if the capability calls returned ENOSYS and > silently ignores them. > > Note that it's generally a good idea from security prospective that > one enable the new security mechanisms in their kernel, but yes, we > would keep our promise on POLA on stable branches. Sorry for the > breakage. > > Cheers, > - -- > Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/ > FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTFQ7/AAoJEJW2GBstM+nsQYYP/i7teuMdm+G79dnaYFzlh3KN > Ao7wiC4CUhrDUTyeMvreS+mo3lXSD/dH83eTpWUKDIEq3kHpqJ69Oi9qh01+9fSy > t0lFHqKS3AqamRWoJpjygogaRAu9KpWsqQgttc7iZa+pbOeHYSiM2rmcoJauT8PX > zoCi2zX3DZj2Jcm+hznvDVUFf+POpP1dBxp4u6MT8N3079nfcu5uSOPROqXodxW2 > +Y71o7EQvWobsnUIhu4zK/16gWVuqmpIeGVv80uvOv935LaW1aCB30J0vZmmbbni > Q59z47y/SzhtU2lOPmykj5LFpr3rlW572Wg7ibGzqksxXrqBomGmfMH78HEKKJb8 > 6o9kbRFH04m8TeumQ4KE7VTTc8oYa55+o5dRPCrjgkLQusfYLiZh23UZ1RmDPmZD > DYhFv4nWNRkDet2o4ow5PdsSUYs/ezwfURpHTgDoUhkklr9/74F6uVYshD68Ojgs > 6fALpH6T9fKES7teqalycSSNY407aGCOYQRAb+0kHVEafXKO2w4CqZ4cJ5bB8KSH > tZA371LHS0n82aeBvNDzqyQBxVCJ7vZJY7jfxSRuIh1ePou7I+FduIM9i0NkhD0y > 6NCNmsRgn9mt3rDCKmIdvhUc0qZH81a23q6YXkK7U+cQ26p+kksSOxM0sk/fwVBo > /jj2qDuCdm9+Suj1u8Y+ > =L20p > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1sb5zT7H0bQkDbc4ZcL0SMuMARfJQ-p1qDkXnMg%2B1c47g>