Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "Proposal: Different handling of ChrootDirectory"
2012 Aug 18
0
[Bug 2036] New: Add %g user group name parameter for ChrootDirectory
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036
Priority: P5
Bug ID: 2036
Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org
Summary: Add %g user group name parameter for ChrootDirectory
Severity: enhancement
Classification: Unclassified
OS: Linux
Reporter: sue at pennine.com
Hardware: ix86
Status:
2010 Mar 01
4
[Bug 1726] New: ChrootDirectory doesn't work with SE Linux
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1726
Summary: ChrootDirectory doesn't work with SE Linux
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 5.3p1
Platform: Other
URL: http://bugs.debian.org/556644
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: sshd
2009 Mar 18
4
[Bug 1574] New: trailing white space on Forced Command within ChrootDirectory causes failure
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1574
Summary: trailing white space on Forced Command within
ChrootDirectory causes failure
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 5.1p1
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: sshd
AssignedTo:
2014 Mar 17
1
internal-sftp stuck on 'ls' with chrootdirectory
Hi all,
I am using Match directive and internal-sftp to chroot sftp users into their
directory. Connection and login works. I can change directories and put/get
files. Also logging of the internal sftp-process works (created a /dev/log
socket inside the chroot). As soon as I use the 'ls' command, nothing
happens and the the process gets stuck. Listing files does work as soon as I
remove
2009 Feb 26
2
[Bug 1564] New: non-accessible user's home directory not reported when ChrootDirectory=none
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1564
Summary: non-accessible user's home directory not reported when
ChrootDirectory=none
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 5.2p1
Platform: All
OS/Version: Solaris
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sshd
2008 Mar 21
1
ChrootDirectory fails if compiled with SELinux support (whether or not using SELinux)
Hi,
(please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the list)
If compiled with SELinux support, OpenSSH 4.8 current cvs fails for
accounts where the new ChrootDirectory option is active :
debug1: PAM: establishing credentials
debug3: PAM: opening session
debug2: User child is on pid 1695
debug3: mm_request_receive entering
debug1: PAM: establishing credentials
debug3: safely_chroot: checking
2009 Apr 30
2
ChrootDirectory %h
Hi,
many people are having problems using SFTP with ChrootDirectory when the
jail directory (or the path above) is not owned by root. The question is
if chroot'ing to usual home directories can be allowed, even though they
are owned by regular users.
I know that this topic has been discussed on the list several times now,
so I searched the list archives for posts that invalidate the
2009 Mar 28
3
ChrootDirectory security
Hello,
I've tried many places, finally ending up here to ask my question: why
is it so vital that the directory used with the ChrootDirectory
directive is root-owned?
Like many people I'm trying to use this in a webhosting environment
where several users get sftp-only access to some directory, usually
something like /home/user/web/part-of-website.
I can be sure that there are no setuid
2008 Apr 15
0
ChrootDirectory - SFTP subsystem works fine but SSH hangs
Hi
I'm using Centos 5 with Openssh-5.0p1 installed (and OpenSSL 0.98b and
Zlib 1.2.3-3). I've managed to get a chroot'd SFTP session using
ChrootDirectory and the new built-in SFTP subsystem. However, when I
use SSH to connect to the same account the session hangs rather than
closing the connection. This happens whether or not I use
/sbin/nologin /bin/false or even /bin/sh
2011 Jan 17
1
Questions about ChrootDirectory
Hello,
I'm aware of the fact that ChrootDirectory requires that the target
directory is root-owned, and I think I've mostly understood why that is
necessary, at least within the context of someone who has full shell
access. However, I am wondering if that possibility for privilege
escalation still exists with a configuration like this:
Match Group sftp
ForceCommand internal-sftp
2012 Jan 19
2
ChrootDirectory per SSH Subsystem?
Hi,
According to the sshd_config manual page the option ChrootDirectory can be used to force a chroot:ed environment for the SSHD server. But as I understand the manual page this is a global setting and it is not possible to specify this per SSH subsystem.
We are building a system where we need users to be able to log on from remote machines via SSH, but with the tweaks that we (for security
2009 Nov 05
3
sshd_config ChrootDirectory ambiguity...
Under "ChrootDirectory" there is a line that says,
"This path, and all its components, must be root-owned directories
that are not writable by any other user or group."
When I first read this "all its components" seemed to mean that
all directories and files within this directory must be root owned
and root only writable. This seemed odd as I would not be able
to
2012 May 10
2
Is there any method, with ChrootDirectory and internal-sftp, to automatically cd to a subdir on login?
Hi,
This is either a query or a feature request. I have a system where sftp
users are chrooted using scponly, which while requiring much more setup than
OpenSSH's internal-sftp method, has the useful feature of allowing an
initial chroot to a subdirectory, typically the one used for file exchange.
I've searched for a way to do the same thing with OpenSSH. So far haven't
found it.
If
2014 Oct 10
3
[Bug 2289] New: arandom(4) as documented in sshd_config(5)’s ChrootDirectory option does not exist on all platforms
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2289
Bug ID: 2289
Summary: arandom(4) as documented in sshd_config(5)?s
ChrootDirectory option does not exist on all platforms
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 6.7p1
Hardware: Other
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
2009 Jun 30
5
[Bug 1616] New: root owned empty subdirs are deletable by chroot users
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1616
Summary: root owned empty subdirs are deletable by chroot users
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 5.2p1
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: sftp-server
AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org
2008 Jun 07
2
Chroot'ed SSH
Hi,
Is anyone chrooting users that connect through SSH?
I looked for it on Google and I basically saw several methods:
- OpenSSH 5 supports ChrootDirectory (FC9 apparently has RPMs that
probably could be rebuilt under CentOS 5)
- There seem to be several patches for OpenSSH 4.x to do the chroot,
the most popular seems to be http://chrootssh.sf.net/
- There appears to be a pam_chroot
- There are
2008 May 25
1
OpenSSH + chroot + SELinux = broke
Hello,
First, a big thank you to the OpenSSH devs.
_ /Problem Summary:/
_ Chroot and SELinux don't get along. This affects both the new
(official) ChrootDirectory feature, as well as the older (3rd party)
patch at http://chrootssh.sourceforge.net/.
_ /History and repro:/
_ On March 21, 2008, Alexandre Rossi posted to this list with the
subject: "*ChrootDirectory
2008 Oct 23
6
ChrootDirectory on a per key basis
Hello,
I'm trying to set up an sftp (sshfs) service accessible to users with
a normal account on a server, but which would be restricted to a
subset of the directory hierarchy normally accessible to the users in
question, in practice a single directory. The idea would be to allow
file access to this directory with a passwordless public key, but keep
rest of the users file accessible only with
2009 Jan 09
1
setting umask for internal-sftp users
I'm running OpenSSH 5.1p1 on openSUSE 10.3 (i586) and I want to setup chroot jails for certain
SFTP-only users. I use the following lines in my sshd_config file:
Match Group sftponly
ChrootDirectory /home/chroot-%u
ForceCommand internal-sftp
It works great.
The problem is that some of my users need umask 002 for their uploads. I tried a few ways to
achieve this:
* set umask in sshrc,
2013 Feb 02
2
Relaxing strict chroot checks on recent Linux kernels?
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to see the chroot
security checks relaxed a bit. On newer Linux kernels, there's a
prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0) that prevents privilege
elevation (via setuid binaries, etc) for the caller and all of its
descendants. That means that chroot(untrusted directory),
prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0), setreuid(uid, uid), execve(a