cvs-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Cvs-dev] Re: cvs-passwd patch


From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: [Cvs-dev] Re: cvs-passwd patch
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:28:55 -0700

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Prasad,

First, the 'cvs passwd' command is not a replacement for the way that
the operating system sets the password. It should never even consider
trying to modify credentials that are not totally under CVS control.

If a user has a login identity on the cvs server for a repository, this
does not necessarily mean that they will always have direct access to
the repository. For example, they may only have limited access from a
particular client to be able to login. Or, in the case of :kserver: and
:gserver: some clients may have the tools to contact a kdc for a ticket
granting ticket while others do not.

So, while I suspect it would be a little unusual that a server would have
both a :pserver: and non-:pserver: access, it is not entirely impossible.

In fact, I suspect the largest user of a non-:pserver: method to change
:pserver: passwords would be the cvs administrator(s).

The case where user Alice does a 'cvs login' and leaves the shell window
open is a problem in more than one way. Such a user could have someone
to a 'cvs commit' on their behalf with a trojan or other evil changes.
That such a user might have to contact the administrator to have the
password reset seems like a good learning experience and might alert the
adminstrator that the user may have committed code that should be audited.
In addition, there is nothing to say that the evil user Bill could just
copy the .cvspass file for later mischief and do a trivial descramble of
the file and modify the password at a later time.

In any case, I fully expect that the administrator at least should be
able to use a secure protocol to issue the 'cvs passwd' command to do
user administration.

Choosing to disallow normal users from making password changes via other
protocols would seem to make their lives more complicated.

Do any of the other readers of this thread have opinions on this matter?

        -- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFOQdXCg7APGsDnFERAsjxAKDW443uUYNkY3otwqt4R7n+cd5lPwCfd0IW
qal9RUs4Nx48OAbAQZvtLbY=
=kiR4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]