bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PAM authentication patch - v2


From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: Re: PAM authentication patch - v2
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:49:45 -0700

Brian Murphy <address@hidden> writes:

> Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> 
> >I guess that I really do not understand why :pserver: needs to use PAM
> >authentication. I am not saying there is not a reason, I just have not
> >understood it.
> 
> One good reason is that you want to use LDAP or NIS authentication but
> you dont want local shell users. Local shell users can do very stupid
> stuff like remove parts of the repository which is not possible via
> pserver.

Yes, that is a potentially good reason to not allow :ext: to be used.

Hmmm... ssh allows for you to restrict remote commands to the 'cvs'
command on that server, but that is getting into a bit of an esoteric
situation. I can understand where that might be undesirable as a setup,
but it would not be that difficult to make a shell that only allowed the
cvs command to be executed even for rsh users... there are lots of pages
on the net devoted to creation of restricted-shells.

(Note: For myself, I actually use a set-gid cvs executable and a
repository that has the files and directories owned by an administrative
user and no one is allowed in the set-gid group other than the cvs
administrator. In practise, it would be possible for someone malicious
to mess with the repository during the small period of time when they
are doing the commit before the ownership of the files is changed in the
log_accum script, but in practice employees who did that would be fired.
The mechanism is really only there to try to prevent accidents.)

There is still the :gserver: (GSSAPI mechanism) and :kserver: methods
(you really do not want to use Kerberos 4 as it is not very secure at
all) that might work for you without needing PAM services to be added to
cvs.

As I understand it, some flavor of Kerberos exists on the recent
versions of Windows these days. To be honest, I do not know how well the
microsoft and redhat versions of kerberos interoperate. If anyone out
there in the reading audience would care to comment on this possibility,
that would be interesting information for you to share.

        Enjoy!
        -- Mark




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]