bugzilla-daemon at mindrot.org
2015-Apr-17 11:47 UTC
[Bug 2384] New: AllowUsers doesn't allow users sssd domain users with @ in
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2384
Bug ID: 2384
Summary: AllowUsers doesn't allow users sssd domain users with
@ in
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 6.6p1
Hardware: Other
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
Component: sshd
Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org
Reporter: bjoern at j3e.de
sssd users from an active directory have the syntax
accountname at domain.realm
they can also aliased to domain\accountname and optionally just to
"accountname". In any case when you run getent on any of those names
you get back the real username "accountname at domain.realm" like
here:
# getent passwd bjacke
bjacke at comp.private:*:83542:100:bjacke:/home/comp.private/bjacke:/bin/bash
# getent passwd comp\\bjacke
bjacke at comp.private:*:83542:100:bjacke:/home/comp.private/bjacke:/bin/bash
I see two problems here:
1) even if users log on with the "full qualified name"
accountname at domain.realm then it is not possible to limit logons via
AllowUsers because the @ is a limiter for the hostname here and I don't
see how the @ could be quoted or so.
2) if the user logs on with an alias name then sshd should normalize
the name by asking nsswitch like in the above case, to see that bjacke
is actually bjacke at comp.private
When I log on as bjacke (who is bjacke at comp.private really) in the sshd
log I see:
Postponed keyboard-interactive for invalid user bjacke from 127.0.0.1
even though I set "AllowUsers bjacke". So maybe bjacke is normalized
to
the real "bjacke at comp.private" name and just the log output is
confusing. But even then still the problem remains that there is no way
to define a user with @ in AllowUsers...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
bugzilla-daemon at mindrot.org
2024-Dec-06 15:55 UTC
[Bug 2384] AllowUsers doesn't allow users sssd domain users with @ in
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2384
Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |djm at mindrot.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> ---
Rather than change the old Allow/DenyUsers/Group syntax, I think it's
better to use the newer "match user=xxx" and "match
group=xxx" syntax,
which is free from this limitation.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
Possibly Parallel Threads
- ((AllowUsers || AllowGroups) && !(AllowUsers && AllowGroups))
- more flexible AllowUsers/DenyUsers syntax
- [Bug 1690] New: AllowUsers and DenyGroups directives are not parsed in the order specified
- Question about AllowUsers and AllowGroups
- AllowUsers not working under certain conditions