Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:27:58 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: kientzle@acm.org Cc: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: What to do about nologin(8)? Message-ID: <200402241027.58978.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <403A7DD0.2090802@kientzle.com> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040223171828.03de8b30@imap.sfu.ca> <200402231553.34677.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <403A7DD0.2090802@kientzle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 23 February 2004 05:25 pm, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > My point (sigh) is that doing system("logger") has the same problem set
> > as making nologin dynamic ...
>
> No, it doesn't. Not if you make nologin static and
> have it create a fresh environment before running
> any external programs. This would also be considerably
> more compact than statically linking in the logging functions.
Fair enough.
> > Also, personally, I would rather have nologin be static than fix the one
> > known case of login -p and just hope no other cases pop up in the future.
> > Call me paranoid. :)
>
> Armoring nologin(8) is insufficient.
>
> 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. :)
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402241027.58978.jhb>