similar to: [semi-OT] rssh

I just released rssh version 2.2.3 to fix the problem detailed below. I haven't had time to update my website yet, and my Internet acess is quite limited these days (hence the terse announcement), so I probably won't get to that for a while. However, rssh 2.2.3 is available from the sourceforge.net site: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rssh All users of rssh should update to the

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm pleased to announce that rssh now has per-user configurations! Today I released rssh v2.1.0 with that last peice of functionality to be added, bringing active development of rssh to a close. Additionally, I spent several hours testing and debugging this release as thoroughly as I could think to, and I'm pleased to report (tongue in cheek)

rssh is a small shell whose purpose is to restrict users to using scp or sftp, and also provides the facilities to place users in a chroot jail. It can also be used to lock users out of a system completely. William F. McCaw identified a minor security flaw in rssh when used with chroot jails. There is a bug in rssh 2.0 - 2.1.x which allows a user to gather information outside of a chrooted jail

PIZZACODE SECURITY ALERT program: rssh risk: low[*] problem: string format vulnerability in log.c details: rssh is a restricted shell for use with OpenSSH, allowing only scp and/or sftp. For example, if you have a server which you only want to allow users to copy files off of via scp, without providing shell access, you can use rssh to do that. Additioanlly, running rsync, rdist, and cvs are

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, Today I released rssh 1.0.4. rssh is a small replacement shell that provides the ability for system administrators to give specific users access to a given system via scp or sftp only. For downloads or more information, visit the rssh homepage: http://www.pizzashack.org/rssh This release fixes a stupid bug caused by a failure to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [This came over BUGTRAQ this morning. Note the call for volunteers vis-a-vis rssh.] - ----- Forwarded message from Jason Wies <jason at xc.net> ----- List-Id: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com> List-Subscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-subscribe at securityfocus.com> To: bugtraq at securityfocus.com Cc: rssh-discuss at

Affected Software: rssh - all versions prior to 2.3.0 Vulnerability: local user privilege escalation Severity: *CRITICAL* Impact: local users can gain root access Solution: Please upgrade to v2.3.1 Summary ------- rssh is a restricted shell which allows a system administrator to limit users' access to a system via SSH to scp, sftp, rsync, rdist, and cvs. It also allows the system

> $ rsync -e 'ssh -v' lingnu.com: > OpenSSH_5.1p1 Debian-2, OpenSSL 0.9.8g 19 Oct 2007 > debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config > debug1: Applying options for * > debug1: Connecting to lingnu.com [199.203.56.105] port 22. > debug1: Connection established. ... > debug1: Sending command: rsync --server --sender -de.L . As we can see, rsync runs ssh, and

Since rsync 3.0 i've detected a problem with rssh and -e option....rssh doesn't allow this option...but is essential to me (cyphered transmission with ssh). Surfing the net i've seen a guy that made a patch but I don't know how reliable is...and rssh former programer says he just left the project so it's no longer his problem. Is this stuff going to be updated in rsync or is

Good Morning All, Attached is a full patch [or so I hope] enabling chroot support for sshd. I know varied opinions about chroot exist among the masses; however, I continue to believe that until something far outside the scope of openssh tackles the sandbox issue, the role of enforcer will continue to be with the daemon. This patch is based on a previous work by John Furman as well as Eric

List, I am putting together a sftp server and would like to use a restrictive shell with a chroot jail. I was wondering what members of the list thought about rssh as opposed to scponly. Greg Ennis

Hello, This patch makes it possible to restrict sftp sessions to a certain subtree of the file system on a per-Unix account basis. It requires a program such as rssh or scponly to function. A patch for rssh is also attached to this email. The method employed uses realpath() and a string comparison to check that each file or directory access is allowed. With this patch, sftp-server takes a

Hello, I don't know if this is of anybody's interest here, but I have written a patch to selectively override a user's shell dependent of the username. The reason behind this is, that at the high performance cluster I work at, we would like that normal users are only permitted to use scp and sftp (and thus a shell like rssh) on our master nodes, but should retain their

Hello, I know this chroot issue has been brought up many times before on this list. I saw that the contribibuted chroot-patch was removed from the contrib directory because it always was out of date. The main reason was of course was that sftp-server has to be run as root to be able to do the chroot() call? Most of you are against chroot (since it isnt in the src) but I believe a lot of users

Hi! I do not know if it's the ideal place, but I'm sending some suggestion. Always use openssh and its enormous features. - I needed to create an environment with only sftp access and thus used: - Match User suporte ForceCommand / usr / lib / openssh / sftp-server OK! It worked perfectly! But only sftp. - Create an environment with only blocking the ssh, but scp and

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 07:39, Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com> wrote: [...] > Problem is that if their default shell isn't sh, ash, dash, bash, zsh, etc. then things break. > Is there a workaround to allow scp/sftp to continue to work even for non-shell accounts? sftp should work regardless of the user's shell since it is invoked as a ssh subsystem

I was trying to use rsync to send files to a fileserver using an rssh restricted server. It refuses, saying that trying to override the shell with -e is forbidden. I didn't type "-e". When I look at the source, I see /* Checking the pre-negotiated value allows --protocol=29 override. */ if (protocol_version >= 30) { /* We make use of the -e

Hi, As per the subject line - if I look up setting up chroot jails for SFTP over SSH2 I'm led to various Web sites and patches and also to a CentOS wiki page dated 2005, but what's the 'best' or 'correct' way to set this up for Centos 4.5 and 5? Thanks

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:30 PM, <centos-request at centos.org> wrote: > Send CentOS mailing list submissions to > centos at centos.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > centos-request at

Hi, On CentOS 7 I?m trying to set up a chrooted SFTP server on which specific users can only read and write on specific folder. And I?d like to disable some commands, so the users can only do ?cd?, ?ls?, ?get? and ?put? (and disabling ?chgrp?, ?chmod?, ?chown?, ?df? etc ?). Is there a way to achieve it, natively or with using a third-party software ? Alexandre MALDEME Analyste d'exploitation