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.
Seemingly Similar 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