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@zioni            Interazioni di Antonio Nati
   http://www.interazioni.it      to...@interazioni.it
------------------------------------------------------------



!DSPAM:5600059741551931516382!

Reply via email to