Quoting Petter Reinholdtsen (2013-09-03 09:57:58) > [Jonas Smedegaard] > >> I suspect we are better of finding some alternative, preferably > >> something also used elsewhere. :) > > > > Fully acknowledged. > > The issue at hand is to find a good alternative. sudo might do. > remctl might do. Even nrpe (nagios remote execution) would work. :) > > > Regarding use of remctl for this, that sounds heavyweight to me. Why > > is password storage needed at all? If this is about providing > > trusted access from a web interface to changing config files, then > > it seems to me with *any* trust-gaining method that the real issue > > is in limiting how big a door we leave open, and seems to me we > > don't need Kerberos at all. > > I did not say password storage is needed, I just observed that it is > seem to be done today, and it could be dome in a standard and well > proven way using kerberos keytab files too.
Let me try rephrase: Why use a mechanism more complex than e.g. sudo to govern crossing boundaries of access rights? If Kerberos is used only to issue tickets automatically based on user-id, then I see no benefit of that mechanism. If Kerberos is used also for authenticating human users of FreedomBox, how do you then imagine making that dead user-friendly? > I just happen to like Kerberos, and believe it is a good thing to have > around in any computing enviroment, and also know how to set it up > automatically thanks to our experience in Debian Edu. :) I like Kerberos. But it is not on my list of things I want in _every_ computing environment. Not even the Linux kernel belong everywhere - but also without splitting hairs, I don't think Kerberos belong in all Debian systems. But I might simply miss something obvious here - I am a newbee in Kerberos. > > What I am thinking is a CGI interface run as an isolated user (e.g. > > via uwsgi or apache2-suexec) talking to debconf. I don't see how > > Kerberos kan strengthen security - only complicate the setup adding > > amount of potential attack vectors. > > Kerberos would not strengthen security - it is not why I propose it. > It would increase the usefulness of the freedombox (being an Kerberos > authentication service) while bringing our selected solutions more in > line with solutions used elsewhere. How would it increase usefulness for the target users of FreedomBox? ...or do you imply a wider userbase? > Anyone know how arkos is doing this? It seem to have several of the > same design issues as our plans for the freedombox. I am curious about that too. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss