Re: AppArmor for Fedora

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 13:11 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 21:55 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The passwd file isn't considered secret in any way. Its public
> > readable data. The /etc/shadow file holds passwords and is root only.
> 
> I thought that's only because we, now, have passwords stored in another
> location.  It used to contain passwords.  Maybe it still does with some
> distros.
> 
> ll /etc/passwd
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2175 2007-08-19 15:56 /etc/passwd
> 
> Not quite "root only."  Sure, only root can change it, but others can
> read it.
> 

Tim,

/etc/passwd has always been "universally" readable.  As a quick example,
note your use of "ll" which is really "ls -l" and the fact that the
third and fourth columns are displaying "names" of the user and group
associated with that file.  The reality is that the "names" are not
stored on disk, but rather their numeric representation: uid and gid.
In order for the ls command to display a name, it needs to "look up" the
user's name associated with the uid it got from the filesystem.  Where
is this "mapping" of uid and username kept?  Yep, /etc/passed.
Likewise, /etc/group is universally readable to allow lookups of gid to
group name.

The general consensus has always been that the "information" kept
in /etc/passwd and /etc/group are considered "public" information.
Passwords have been "moved" to a "private" file called /etc/shadow
(and /etc/gshadow), because of the potential for "dictionary attacks" on
the encrypted password if all users could access that too.  Look at
"pwconv" and "pwunconv"....

But how public do we really want to be, even with the /etc/passwd fields
that remain?  While most authenticated, interactive users on my system
might need to access /etc/passwd to get proper output from /bin/ls, do
all my daemons/services running in the background need that access?
Does my DNS server really need to "look up" anything in /etc/passwd?
So, as this thread started, these MAC-level security layers allow me to
create more granularity in restricting users and services, but now in a
"central" policy that can be "role" based....

HTH,

--Rob


-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux