Adrian von Bidder wrote:
(Context: I'm not subscribed to secureshell, so my original posting was
discarded after the moderators didn't approve it for more than x days.)
On Monday 22 January 2007 07:09, you wrote:
PasswordAuthentication no
Match User sftpuser
PasswordAuthentication
On Monday 15 January 2007 20:39, Michel Messerschmidt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 02:36:10PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I have users a, b, c, d, e. All users except e can have shell access,
but beecause shell access is powerful, must not be able to log in with
password, but only
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 08:49:08PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I trust the users who have shell access to keep their keys secure. I don't
trust the users to have unguessable (think dictionary attacks!) passwords.
I see dictionary attacks on ssh on a daily basis.
Hmm. Which of these two
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.01.11.1855 +0100]:
Anybody has an idea if and how this is possible? The obvious but
ugly solution would be to run a second sshd on a different port,
but I'd rather avoid that.
It'll be possible if and only if SSH
(Context: I'm not subscribed to secureshell, so my original posting was
discarded after the moderators didn't approve it for more than x days.)
On Monday 22 January 2007 07:09, you wrote:
PasswordAuthentication no
Match User sftpuser
PasswordAuthentication yes
If you're interested I
Hi,
Michel Messerschmidt wrote/schrieb @ 15.01.2007 20:39:
[...]
Public keys can be stolen too. If you consider this a risk, you should
[Typ|Brain]o?
s/Public/Private/
or what problem should arise from spreading public keys?
--
- maik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 09:23 +0100, Maik Holtkamp wrote:
Hi,
Michel Messerschmidt wrote/schrieb @ 15.01.2007 20:39:
[...]
Public keys can be stolen too. If you consider this a risk, you should
[Typ|Brain]o?
s/Public/Private/
My thoughts exactly... stealing and placing *MY* public
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 09:23:31AM +0100, Maik Holtkamp wrote:
Public keys can be stolen too. If you consider this a risk, you should
[Typ|Brain]o?
s/Public/Private/
Okay, I had a long day, but this really sounds stupid ;)
Please read it as
The *private* key used for ssh public key
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 14:36 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 20:15, Michel Messerschmidt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:55:33PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Anybody has an idea if and how this is possible? The obvious but ugly
solution would be to run a
On Monday 15 January 2007 10:26, Berend De Schouwer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 14:36 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I have users a, b, c, d, e. All users except e can have shell access,
but beecause shell access is powerful, must not be able to log in with
password, but only with
On 2007-01-15 10:08:51 -0500 Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 15 January 2007 10:26, Berend De Schouwer wrote:
You could set the passwords for a, b, c, and d to some invalid hash
in /etc/passwd, so no password will actually work, but public keys do
work. Like ubuntu
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 02:36:10PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I have users a, b, c, d, e. All users except e can have shell access, but
beecause shell access is powerful, must not be able to log in with
password, but only with public key.
If you don't trust your users to keep their
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 16:08 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Monday 15 January 2007 10:26, Berend De Schouwer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 14:36 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I have users a, b, c, d, e. All users except e can have shell access,
but beecause shell access is
On Sunday 14 January 2007 14:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I have users a, b, c, d, e. All users except e can have shell
access, but beecause shell access is powerful, must not be able to
log in with password, but only with public key. User e is allowed
to log in with password and is
moin,
On [Sun, 14.01.2007 20:17], Stefan Fritsch wrote:
SF On Sunday 14 January 2007 14:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
SF I have users a, b, c, d, e. All users except e can have shell
SF access, but beecause shell access is powerful, must not be able to
SF log in with password, but only with
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:55:33PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Anybody has an idea if and how this is possible? The obvious but ugly
solution would be to run a second sshd on a different port, but I'd rather
avoid that.
If I understand this correctly, it's not a matter of public key or
also sprach Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.01.11.1855 +0100]:
Anybody has an idea if and how this is possible? The obvious but
ugly solution would be to run a second sshd on a different port,
but I'd rather avoid that.
It'll be possible if and only if SSH differentiates between
17 matches
Mail list logo
