Joe,
To be clearer, if there are missing passwords in either a user-supplied 
SC manifest or default.xml (which supplies the default user, user 
password, and root password), the installation will fail.
William

Joseph J. VLcek wrote:
> William,
>
> Sounds good to me. My brief comment below.
>
> Joe
>
> William Schumann wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> Joseph J VLcek wrote:
>>> William Schumann wrote:
>>>> Default values for user and root passwords were not encrypted as 
>>>> called for in:
>>>>
>>>> - 4246 The user and root password are not encrypted in SC manifest
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~wmsch/bug-6622/
>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6622
>>>>
>>>> Edited default.xml in SUNW-installadm-tools to provide usable 
>>>> encrypted passwords as described in bug report.
>>>>
>>>> user: jack password:jack
>>>> root password: opensolaris
>>>>
>>>> Also added code to provide the same values if they are absent from 
>>>> the SC manifest for whatever reason.
>>>>
>>>> Informational debugging message in Orchestrator can now display the 
>>>> passwords, since they are encrypted.
>>>>
>>>> Tested default.xml changes going into SUNWinstalladm-tools package 
>>>> on x86 and SPARC.
>>>> Tested new auto-install and liborchestrator on x86 and SPARC. 
>>>> Deleted entries from SC manifest and software generated correct 
>>>> default values.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> William,
>>>
>>>   Set the commit comment prior to generating the webrev. (I used to 
>>> forget to do this too. ;)
>>>
>>>   Everything looks good...
>>>
>>>   Just some nits.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps!
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> usr/src/cmd/ai-webserver/default.xml
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Suggestion, Please consider:
>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>>   Is it considered safe to store encrypted defaults? 
>> Well, I suppose that it's a usability question.  It is not safe for 
>> an uninformed user; however, many current users are evaluating AI and 
>> do not want to have to go through the process of generating passwords 
>> and placing them in manifests.  Those concerned with maximum security 
>> will change the passwords in the manifest, protect manifests from 
>> public view, and change the passwords upon reboot.
>>> What if the encryption algorithm changes?
>> AI controls the encryption algorithm via /etc/security/policy.conf.  
>> If the security policy were changed in the distro, the default.xml 
>> passwords would also have to be changed to work.
>>>
>>>   Since you added code to provide the defaults perhaps it might be 
>>> safest to not list the encrypted defaults in the manifest.
>> Again, it is inherently unsafe to provide default passwords whether 
>> they are encrypted or not.  It is assumed that the concerned user 
>> will override the defaults.  Perhaps it is a bad idea to have the 
>> defaults in the code:  if the default passwords are not provided in 
>> the code, the passwords could be removed from default.ini on the 
>> server so that there are no defaults at all (although I don't think 
>> this would be standard practice.)  A custom distro could also have 
>> the default passwords removed.
>>
>> So, I am backing out the embedded passwords in the code, so that if 
>> passwords are not provided in a manifest, the install will fail.  I 
>> also backed out the logging statements exposing the encrypted 
>> passwords in the log at an informational logging level.  What do you 
>> think?
>
> This seems to me to be the correct thing to do.
>
>
>>>
>>> Question:
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> Do/should we provide a mechanism or instructions for a user to 
>>> generate the encrypted passwords if they want something besides the 
>>> defaults?
>> I have already provided instructions for this in the AI setup HTML 
>> page and the design document.
>>>
>>> usr/src/cmd/auto-install/auto_install.c
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Comments on line 580 and 598 are the same. 598 should be changed from:
>>> 598         /* load user name from manifest or 'jack' */
>>>
>>> To:
>>> 598         /* load user login name from manifest or 'jack' */
>>>
>> Changed.
>>
>> Thanks, Joe.  Please review the modifications.
>> William
>

Reply via email to