On Tue, May 31, 2016, at 11:07, Max R.D. Parmer wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016, at 10:44, Mick wrote: > > On Tuesday 31 May 2016 16:30:27 James wrote: > > > Here is an interesting read:: > > > > > > Security brief: CoreOS Linux Alpha remote SSH issue > > > May 19, 2016 ยท By Matthew Garrett > > > > > > <snippets> > > > > > > Gentoo defaults to ending the PAM configuration with an optional > > > pam_permit. > > > > > > This meant that failing both pam_unix and pam_sss on CoreOS systems would > > > surprisingly result in authentication succeeding, and access being > > > granted. > > > > > > The operator user was not used by CoreOS, but existed because it exists in > > > the Gentoo Portage system from which CoreOS is derived. > > > <end/snippets> > > > > > > Full read [1]. It kinda shows that CoreOS is derived from Gentoo > > > and not ChromeOS; at least when time to blame a security lapse > > > elsewhere.... > > > > > > > > > enjoy, > > > James > > > > > > [1] https://coreos.com/blog/ > > > > Does this mean we need to do anything to improve the security of our > > systems? > > The interaction seems to be problematic when SSSD is introduced to the > mix, as the SSSD documentation seems to assume a fallthrough to > pam_permit.so. With a merely empty user password, I cannot trigger this > issue. I will have to try with an expired account and a locked account > later. > > the pam_permit.so line was introduced here: > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pambase.git/commit/?id=ac9023eecfe3c13d212c548bb9d5d1b42a4e044b > > At the very least, it does seem like it ought to be pam_deny.so instead. > > I wonder if this issue is still even relevant for Kerberos users? > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333393 >
Yeah -- doesn't work with a locked or expired account either.
