| 1 |
On 05/31/2016 01:44 PM, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 31 May 2016 16:30:27 James wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Here is an interesting read:: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Security brief: CoreOS Linux Alpha remote SSH issue |
| 6 |
>> May 19, 2016 · By Matthew Garrett |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> <snippets> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Gentoo defaults to ending the PAM configuration with an optional pam_permit. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> This meant that failing both pam_unix and pam_sss on CoreOS systems would |
| 13 |
>> surprisingly result in authentication succeeding, and access being granted. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> The operator user was not used by CoreOS, but existed because it exists in |
| 16 |
>> the Gentoo Portage system from which CoreOS is derived. |
| 17 |
>> <end/snippets> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Full read [1]. It kinda shows that CoreOS is derived from Gentoo |
| 20 |
>> and not ChromeOS; at least when time to blame a security lapse elsewhere.... |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> enjoy, |
| 24 |
>> James |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> [1] https://coreos.com/blog/ |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Does this mean we need to do anything to improve the security of our systems? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
I tried logging in as operator with any password, it did not work for |
| 31 |
me. Unsure if that's because of my SSH set up or not though. The blog |
| 32 |
post does however mention reverting their SSSD change did fix the issue, |
| 33 |
so I assume if you set up SSSD the same way they did you would have |
| 34 |
issues. With that being said, maybe it would be a good idea for the |
| 35 |
gentoo pam team to set up pambase to support SSSD and not cause issues. |
| 36 |
(Currently if you want to set up SSSD you are left to do it manually) |
Archives