Re: [vchkpw] [SPAM] Password strength bug
Il 21/09/2015 14:59, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/17/2015 12:28 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 17/09/2015 13:18, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/15/2015 03:27 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 15/09/2015 15:03, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/15/2015 11:00 AM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 15/09/2015 11:03, Drew Wells ha scritto: In vpopmail-5.5.0 there seems to be a bug in vpopmail.c where the password strength is checked even if a password isn't used (such as when -e is used to add the encrypted password). Patch attached. I do not understand the problem. Of course password strenght is checked every time, and if it founds a null/empty password it gives error back if password must have a minimum lenght. Your patch instead permit to have null password even if strenght policy would not allow it. Regards, Tonino The problem is is that vadduser.c can call vadduser() (in vpopmail.c) without a password. It does this in the situation where vadduser.c has had the options "-e" or "-n" passed to it, so if this is the case the password can't be checked againts the password strength rules. The underlying function vadduser() needs to be able to add a user with no password. I realize additional controls are done before calling vadduser(); but I personally would prefer an explicit parameter added to vadduser for avoiding password check (it may be a further parameter having default = "check"). It would make developers more protected against unwanted security bugs. Regards, Tonino I agree that it would be better to explicitly indicate to vadduser() that no password is wanted. I even looked quicky at setting the password to NULL to indicate no password, but both this and an explicit parameter would need changes to all the backends, so have left it as is for now. It could be done in two ways: * considering most od c compilers are c++ compilers, and that means we can add an implicit parameter (, nocheck_pwd = 0) * duplicate the function for this usage, and call the duplicated function from avdduser when needed. Regards, Tonino I have looked at the backends and it turns out that some of the backends can handle a NULL gecos, so expanding on this I have changed all the backends to be able to handle a NULL gecos (in which case they now all use the user as a gecos) and also handle a NULL password. So vadduser.c can pass a NULL password to vadduser(), vadduser() can then check the password_strength() when the password is not NULL. I think that permitting a null password, if policy does not admit it, is a security hole. Prefer you you add another explicit call to be called for no password checking (at all). Regards, Tonino This is going to be the patch I use here, does anyone want this patch ? -- Inter@zioniInterazioni di Antonio Nati http://www.interazioni.it to...@interazioni.it !DSPAM:5600059741551931516382!
Re: [vchkpw] [SPAM] Password strength bug
On 09/21/2015 02:26 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 21/09/2015 14:59, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/17/2015 12:28 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 17/09/2015 13:18, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/15/2015 03:27 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 15/09/2015 15:03, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/15/2015 11:00 AM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 15/09/2015 11:03, Drew Wells ha scritto: In vpopmail-5.5.0 there seems to be a bug in vpopmail.c where the password strength is checked even if a password isn't used (such as when -e is used to add the encrypted password). Patch attached. I do not understand the problem. Of course password strenght is checked every time, and if it founds a null/empty password it gives error back if password must have a minimum lenght. Your patch instead permit to have null password even if strenght policy would not allow it. Regards, Tonino The problem is is that vadduser.c can call vadduser() (in vpopmail.c) without a password. It does this in the situation where vadduser.c has had the options "-e" or "-n" passed to it, so if this is the case the password can't be checked againts the password strength rules. The underlying function vadduser() needs to be able to add a user with no password. I realize additional controls are done before calling vadduser(); but I personally would prefer an explicit parameter added to vadduser for avoiding password check (it may be a further parameter having default = "check"). It would make developers more protected against unwanted security bugs. Regards, Tonino I agree that it would be better to explicitly indicate to vadduser() that no password is wanted. I even looked quicky at setting the password to NULL to indicate no password, but both this and an explicit parameter would need changes to all the backends, so have left it as is for now. It could be done in two ways: * considering most od c compilers are c++ compilers, and that means we can add an implicit parameter (, nocheck_pwd = 0) * duplicate the function for this usage, and call the duplicated function from avdduser when needed. Regards, Tonino I have looked at the backends and it turns out that some of the backends can handle a NULL gecos, so expanding on this I have changed all the backends to be able to handle a NULL gecos (in which case they now all use the user as a gecos) and also handle a NULL password. So vadduser.c can pass a NULL password to vadduser(), vadduser() can then check the password_strength() when the password is not NULL. I think that permitting a null password, if policy does not admit it, is a security hole. Prefer you you add another explicit call to be called for no password checking (at all). Regards, Tonino This is going to be the patch I use here, does anyone want this patch ? Wouldn't it actually be easier to remove the password parameter from vadduser() and then vadduser.c can add a user (without a password) and then optionally set a password using vauth_setpw() ? This is exactly what it should do at the moment for adding a user with a crypted password, the user is added, then the crypted password is set using vauth_setpw(). !DSPAM:56000c6d41552022747047!
Re: [vchkpw] [SPAM] Password strength bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/21/2015 08:55 AM, Drew Wells wrote:
>> I think that permitting a null password, if policy does not admit it, is a
>> security hole.
>> Prefer you you add another explicit call to be called for no password
>> checking (at all).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tonino
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is going to be the patch I use here, does anyone want this patch ?
>>
> Wouldn't it actually be easier to remove the password parameter from
> vadduser() and then
> vadduser.c can add a user (without a password) and then optionally set a
> password using
> vauth_setpw() ? This is exactly what it should do at the moment for adding a
> user with a crypted
> password, the user is added, then the crypted password is set using
> vauth_setpw().
Because vadduser() previously supported an empty password ("\0"), the change to
check for this and
skip the password strength testing won't be changing its functionality. The
password strength check
was not meant to prevent blank passwords, so the fact that it broke the ability
to set one would be
a bug, and skipping the call to the password strength checker would be a bug
fix. vadduser should
not, however, be called with a NULL password.
- --
/*
Matt Brookings GnuPG Key 62817373
Software developer Systems technician
Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. (815)776-9465
*/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWAA4BAAoJEOjQVexigXNzO1EH/iZtAFYiimKNefgU2mgzAwDf
N639Vq/zN6yDtImnBa9lVW37YZQ9IQ1jCNuQZCk91oUQbagMTP37Q3L+HRsGxcHt
tYEmKjvJXFiqNSuBZfmdFdbr8ENz4mvS0GI3VsE02fXUpMLSXAnIUfv+cnN5bCxD
cEs9aEcNQTntcZzKiUWYW+62MpX3BDbZarOpnHmQznihzorn5wcT12gSQo3QGjxp
ZM5LF9UBXOSuus5hFZHxLPQKhcZCvYSS0SpM+hyjLE4JB2nKEiDAVzZ7kqNi6ZV2
K2ocqLDRg1qpXIFGeB2yqobdXSVLEcb9takRE1xAe+v2Ya3YBK09fyBqewfo2qU=
=B/v4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [vchkpw] [SPAM] Password strength bug
On 09/17/2015 12:28 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 17/09/2015 13:18, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/15/2015 03:27 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 15/09/2015 15:03, Drew Wells ha scritto: On 09/15/2015 11:00 AM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote: Il 15/09/2015 11:03, Drew Wells ha scritto: In vpopmail-5.5.0 there seems to be a bug in vpopmail.c where the password strength is checked even if a password isn't used (such as when -e is used to add the encrypted password). Patch attached. I do not understand the problem. Of course password strenght is checked every time, and if it founds a null/empty password it gives error back if password must have a minimum lenght. Your patch instead permit to have null password even if strenght policy would not allow it. Regards, Tonino The problem is is that vadduser.c can call vadduser() (in vpopmail.c) without a password. It does this in the situation where vadduser.c has had the options "-e" or "-n" passed to it, so if this is the case the password can't be checked againts the password strength rules. The underlying function vadduser() needs to be able to add a user with no password. I realize additional controls are done before calling vadduser(); but I personally would prefer an explicit parameter added to vadduser for avoiding password check (it may be a further parameter having default = "check"). It would make developers more protected against unwanted security bugs. Regards, Tonino I agree that it would be better to explicitly indicate to vadduser() that no password is wanted. I even looked quicky at setting the password to NULL to indicate no password, but both this and an explicit parameter would need changes to all the backends, so have left it as is for now. It could be done in two ways: * considering most od c compilers are c++ compilers, and that means we can add an implicit parameter (, nocheck_pwd = 0) * duplicate the function for this usage, and call the duplicated function from avdduser when needed. Regards, Tonino I have looked at the backends and it turns out that some of the backends can handle a NULL gecos, so expanding on this I have changed all the backends to be able to handle a NULL gecos (in which case they now all use the user as a gecos) and also handle a NULL password. So vadduser.c can pass a NULL password to vadduser(), vadduser() can then check the password_strength() when the password is not NULL. This is going to be the patch I use here, does anyone want this patch ? !DSPAM:552d41551245420391!
Re: [vchkpw] [SPAM] Password strength bug
On 09/21/2015 03:02 PM, Matt Brookings wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/21/2015 08:55 AM, Drew Wells wrote:
I think that permitting a null password, if policy does not admit it, is a
security hole.
Prefer you you add another explicit call to be called for no password checking
(at all).
Regards,
Tonino
This is going to be the patch I use here, does anyone want this patch ?
Wouldn't it actually be easier to remove the password parameter from vadduser()
and then
vadduser.c can add a user (without a password) and then optionally set a
password using
vauth_setpw() ? This is exactly what it should do at the moment for adding a
user with a crypted
password, the user is added, then the crypted password is set using
vauth_setpw().
Because vadduser() previously supported an empty password ("\0"), the change to
check for this and
skip the password strength testing won't be changing its functionality. The
password strength check
was not meant to prevent blank passwords, so the fact that it broke the ability
to set one would be
a bug, and skipping the call to the password strength checker would be a bug
fix. vadduser should
not, however, be called with a NULL password.
That was exactly what my original patch on the 15th Sept. did and the
patch is attached to my original message. I have not attached my NULL
password changes patch. I'll revert the patch I use here to my original
one.
While looking at all this I have noticed that vmoduser.c allows the
setting of a "clear_text_password" (-C) but does not do any
password_strength() testing, is this also a bug ? Lastly, there does
not seem to be a way of setting "no password" on an account once it has
been created, is this correct ?
Do you have any idea what needs to be done with regard to some of the
backends being able to accept a NULL gecos ?
!DSPAM:5600119641556874115760!
