At 11:20 AM -0400 4/29/10, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >I haven't been doing a very good job explaining myself. Maybe someone >else will (eventually) do a better job. Or whap me in the head for >being wrong... > >Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> writes: > >> The problem is that many servers in the ports collection (such as mail >> access programs like qpoper) will only let clients connect if the client has >> a shell that is listed in /etc/shells. From a security standpoint, it would >> be obviously better to give these users the ability to act as clients but >> not to be able to log in using the shells that are listed by default (sh, >> csh, or tcsh). >> >> It sounds like you are suggesting that these users should be given a >> *different* shell, and that shell be added to /etc/shells. Why would that be >> any better than adding /usr/sbin/nologin to /etc/shells? > >Exactly right. The reason it's better is that you wouldn't be opening >up existing nologin users to be able to receive mail, FTP in, and so >on. It's okay if you want to do that on your box, but doing it by >default would be an unreasonable breach of the so-called "Principle of >Least Astonishment," and one involving potential security problems at >that.
I can buy that, but then there should be two shells, not one: - /usr/sbin/sysnologin is not listed by default in /etc/shells - /usr/sbin/nologin is listed by default in /etc/shells The two are the exact same program; the only differences are the name and the inclusion. Do others agree on this thought? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
