On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Jonathan Weiss wrote:
> > As far as I know, authpf is only for authentification. This
> > means that it will activate you rules, nothing more. It is
> > not a shell or will it fork to your shell.
> > 
> > You need a second SSH connection for this.
> 
> With a second user id, which has a real shell, yes.
> 
> Some people would argue that you shouldn't give out interactive
> shells ON THE FIREWALL ITSELF.
> 
> > Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> No, that's correct. Working as intended. :)

In attempting to figure out a way to do this I came across this
thread.  I know it's a few years old, but I haven't been very
successful at finding out anything more.

I want to be able to not only authenticate, but provide a shell
into the *same* box.  When I try to use another UID coming from
the same IP, as suggested above, it doesn't work:

++++++++++++++++++/var/log/messages++++++++++++++++++
Apr 22 23:25:22 <user.debug> srv0 -authpf: tried to lock
/var/authpf/<...>, in use by pid 6894: Resource temporarily
unavailable
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(note: pf works fine by itself; when using authpf for users (in
/etc/login.conf) it also appears to work, as it would be used for
most setups, just fine)

While I would agree that issuing interactive shells on a
traditional firewall is obviously bad, it's feasable that using
pf+authpf, combined with interactive shells, for a
non-traditional setup is possible.  I mean, pf and authpf are
just tools... not the policy itself, right?

So, is there a way to achieve both authentication and interactive
access?  Am I missing something stupid?  :)

Thanks, as always.

-- 
Adam Richards
e:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | k:0x0BA2643B

Reply via email to