| 1 |
On 10/26/22 12:31 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> My regular user has script "settime" in ${HOME}/bin |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> #!/bin/bash |
| 5 |
> date |
| 6 |
> /usr/bin/sudo /usr/bin/rdate -nsv ca.pool.ntp.org |
| 7 |
> /usr/bin/sudo /sbin/hwclock --systohc |
| 8 |
> date |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> /etc/sudoers.d/001 has, amongst other things, two lines... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> waltdnes x8940 = (root) NOPASSWD: /sbin/hwclock --systohc |
| 13 |
> waltdnes x8940 = (root) NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/rdate -nsv ca.pool.ntp.org |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> User "waltdnes" is a member of "wheel". If the "wheel" line is |
| 16 |
> uncommented in /etc/sudoers, sudo works for me. If the "wheel" |
| 17 |
> line is commented, then sudo breaks for my regular user. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Please try running the two sudo lines from the script as is on the |
| 20 |
command line as the waltdnes user. I'm wondering if the problem is |
| 21 |
potentially related to something else, namely sudo wanting to read from |
| 22 |
a terminal (PTY) in some configurations. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I believe there is a non-zero chance that the commands allowed via the |
| 25 |
/etc/sudoers.d/001 file will work as entered. But that running sudo |
| 26 |
from within a script, as opposed to on the command line, /may/ be the |
| 27 |
source of problems. -- Divide and conquer the problem. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> There seem to be two different approaches here. The loose approach |
| 30 |
> is to allow a user to run "sudo <whatever I damn well want>". |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This seems to be -- what I refer to as -- the distribution default. |
| 33 |
E.g. get people to run things through sudo vs running things through su |
| 34 |
or running directly as root. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> A more locked down approach allows regular users to run "sudo <very |
| 37 |
> specific command>". |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This is -- what I refer to as -- the (more) enterprise approach. It |
| 40 |
also seems to be the next evolution of the distribution default wherein |
| 41 |
people want to start restricting what can and can't be run via sudo. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The enterprise approach also tends to come more into play as you use |
| 44 |
sudo to run things as users other than root; e.g. run RDBMS commands as |
| 45 |
the Oracle user or backup commands as the Tivoli user. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> This guards against "fat-finger-syndrome". |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I think it's more than protection against fat-finger-syndrome. After |
| 50 |
all, unless the sudoers file(s) is (are) *EXTREMELY* specific down to |
| 51 |
and including command parameters / options, you can still fat-finger |
| 52 |
command parameters / options. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
When you start separating duties and who is allowed to do what is when |
| 55 |
you start to see the more locked down enterprise methodology. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> I go with the more locked down approach |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I use the distribution default on my personal systems where I'm 95% of |
| 60 |
the use case. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
I use the enterprise method on work systems where we have multiple |
| 63 |
people with different skill levels doing different tasks. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Aside: One advantage of the enterprise method is that you can allow a |
| 66 |
command as one target user (Oracle) but not the (default) root user. |
| 67 |
Thus helping protect against people omitting a critical option. -- |
| 68 |
Many things, e.g. Oracle RDBMS, get rather upset when commands |
| 69 |
(accidentally) change the ownership of files when run as the wrong user. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Grant. . . . |
| 75 |
unix || die |
Archives