[43] in linux-security and linux-alert archive
Re: Sh*dow Passwords?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marek Michalkiewicz)
Tue Mar 7 12:16:40 1995
To: linux-security@tarsier.cv.nrao.edu
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 16:28:52 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Marek Michalkiewicz <ind43@ci3ux.ci.pwr.wroc.pl>
In-Reply-To: <m0rlqjv-000xCcC@hq.jcic.org> from "Daniel Hollis" at Mar 6, 95 08:19:18 pm
Reply-To: linux-security@tarsier.cv.nrao.edu
> Yes, this would be very nice. Rewrite the shadow suite from scratch, GPL the
> whole damned thing, and tell John to shove it. The current shadow package
> is a monster, there is no reason it can't be 1/2 to 1/3 the size it
> currently is.
I think I might volunteer to help with this. I have spent quite some time
reading the source of shadow suite and fixing some bugs... (These fixes
are not released yet, please be patient.)
> Does anyone know of weaknesses in the shadow package? Shortcomings? It
> would be a chance to correct them, if any -- and have a freely
> redistributable shadow package.
One bug worth mentioning: "login -h hostname" works for non-root! I'm not
sure if this is a hole, but it is not possible with the standard non-shadow
login. This will change your utmp entry - it looks like you are logged in
from a host you specified.
Just a thought: to stop the whole mess with separate shadow/non-shadow
binaries, we could do this: make them all shadow-aware, but if there is
no shadow password, use the non-shadow one instead. Something like this:
pw = getpwnam(username);
if (pw) {
struct spwd *sp = getspnam(username);
if (sp) {
pw->pw_passwd = sp->sp_pwdp;
if (isexpired(pw, sp)) {
/* do something about this... */
}
}
}
Then the same binaries (ftpd, pop3d, rexecd, xdm, xlock, ...) could be used
with non-shadow and shadow passwords. What do you think about that?
Sorry if this is not the correct place for such detailed discussion - maybe
we should create a new mailing list for this?
Regards,
--
Marek Michalkiewicz
marekm@i17linuxa.ists.pwr.wroc.pl || ind43@ci3ux.ci.pwr.wroc.pl
