-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 First off, this isn't "restricted shell". Second, the user's shell can also match the forced command so that no shell (especially bash) is involved.
On 12/03/2014 03:09 PM, devz...@web.de wrote: >> The benefit of rsync over ssh secured by rrsync is that it is >> more like what rsync users are already used to. > > i don`t like rsync over ssh in an environemt with users you can´t > trust. > > from a security perspective, i think such setup is broken by > design. > > it`s a little bit like giving a foreigner the key to your front > door and then hope that the door in the corridor to your room will > be "secure and stable enough". > > some reasons why i think this way can be found here: > https://www.google.de/search?q=ssh+restricted+shell+bypass > > regards roland > > > >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Dezember 2014 um 20:37 Uhr Von: "Kevin >> Korb" <k...@sanitarium.net> An: devz...@web.de Cc: >> rsync@lists.samba.org Betreff: Re: Aw: Re: encrypted rsyncd - why >> was it never implemented? >> > As far as a backup provider goes I wouldn't expect them to use > rsync over SSL unless that were built into rsync in the future (and > has been around long enough that most users would have it). > > I would expect them to either use rsync over ssh secured by rrsync > or rsyncd over ssh with them managing the rsyncd.conf file. Either > way the server side command would be forced and no other ssh > functionality would be allowed. > > The benefit of rsync over ssh secured by rrsync is that it is more > like what rsync users are already used to. > > The benefit of rsyncd over ssh would be that the provider would > manage the rsyncd.conf files (1 per user) and could make a web UI > to control certain aspects of it. > > I am thinking of something like this with in sshd_config with > whichever ForceCommand they would pick: > > Match Group backupusers X11Forwarding no AllowTcpForwarding no > ForceCommand /usr/bin/rsync --server --daemon . ForceCommand > /usr/bin/rrsync-wrapper > > Note that a wrapper or modification would be needed for rrsync > since sshd_config doesn't support %u or %h in ForceCommand :( > > > On 12/03/2014 02:20 PM, devz...@web.de wrote: >>>> from a security perspective this is bad. think of a backup >>>> provider who wants to make rsyncd modules available to the >>>> end users so they can push backups to the server. do you >>>> think that such server is secure if all users are allowed to >>>> open up an ssh shell to secure their rsync transfer ? >>>> >>>> ok, you can restrict the ssh connection, but you open up a >>>> hole and you need to think twice to make it secure - leaving >>>> room for hacking and circumventing ssh restrictions. >>>> >>>> indeed, rsyncd with ssl is quite attractive, but adding ssl >>>> to rsync adds quite some complexity and also increases >>>> maintenance work. >>>> >>>> for some time there is a ssl patch in the contrib directory, >>>> but i`m curious why nobody is aware of rsyncssl, which is not >>>> a perfect but quite some elegant solution to support wrapping >>>> rsyncd with ssl via stunnel: >>>> >>>> http://dozzie.jarowit.net/trac/wiki/RsyncSSL >>>> https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=commit;h=70d4a945f7d1ab1aca2c3ca8535240fad4bdf06b >>>> >>>> >>>> regards roland >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Dezember 2014 um 19:19 Uhr Von: >>>>> "Kevin Korb" <k...@sanitarium.net> An: rsync@lists.samba.org >>>>> Betreff: Re: encrypted rsyncd - why was it never >>>>> implemented? >>>>> >>>> You can run rsyncd over ssh as well. Either with -e ssh >>>> host::module or you can use ssh's -L to tunnel the rsyncd >>>> port. The difference is which user ends up running the >>>> rsyncd. >>>> >>>> On 12/03/2014 12:40 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >>>>>>> rsync in daemon mode is very powerful, yet it comes >>>>>>> with one big disadvantage: data is sent in plain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workarounds are not really satisfying: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - use VPN - one needs to set up an extra service, not >>>>>>> always possible >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - use stunnel - as above >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - use SSH - is not as powerful as in daemon mode (i.e. >>>>>>> read only access, chroot, easy way of adding/modifying >>>>>>> users and modules etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why was encrypted communication in rsyncd never >>>>>>> implemented? Some technical disagreements? Nobody >>>>>>> volunteered? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting >>>>> the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: >>>>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before >>>>> posting, read: >>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>>>> > >> - -- ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ Kevin Korb Phone: (407) 252-6853 Systems Administrator Internet: FutureQuest, Inc. ke...@futurequest.net (work) Orlando, Florida k...@sanitarium.net (personal) Web page: http://www.sanitarium.net/ PGP public key available on web site. ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlR/dNsACgkQVKC1jlbQAQfCxQCfQw1JOXL4aF9MrU2EFznwEjUl WkgAn0F4QkgrM7M2KA03PeDdUFuNLY4Q =oEpE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
