On Wednesday 27 June 2001 19:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And if I'm not mistaken, if they are somehow now able to execute the
> chsh command, then they have a valid shell account they can log in
> to. :-(
>
> While they shouldn't be able to run chsh, or the equivalent, putting
> their shell in
Recently an uncommon error has begun appearing in the logs of only one of
my servers:
Jun 27 17:06:23 karma sshd[31816]: Setting tty modes failed: Invalid
argument
I have no clue about what it could be due to.
Any help would be appreciated.
--
Luca Gibelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 02:49:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Boursot wrote:
> You create the link ftponly:
> ln -s /bin/ftponly /bin/false
>
> You add /bin/ftponly in /etc/shells.
And if I'm not mistaken, if they are somehow now able to execute the
chsh command, then they have a valid shell account they
Reidar Krogstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And why not /bin/true ?
> When I add ftp-only users I set their shell to /bin/true.
> That makes them able to log in with ftp without access to a shell.
[snip]
Personal preference in choosing shells: if they have access to a service on
the box, /bin/t
Hey,
this is what Proftpd-Docs say.
requirevalidshell is by default set to on. So proftpd will not allow logins
from users whose shell is /bin/false, since this one is not listet in
/etc/shells to be a valid shell.
Syntax: RequireValidShell on|off
Default: on
Context: server config, , ,
Module
And why not /bin/true ?
When I add ftp-only users I set their shell to /bin/true.
That makes them able to log in with ftp without access to a shell.
At 20:54 26.06.2001 -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:36:27AM +0200, Jean-Marc Boursot wrote:
>
> > ln -s /bin/ftponly /bin/fal
Thanks for all your answers.
With that I suppose that "proftpd" does not accept users with the
"/bin/false" shell, isn that true ?
Another question related to this one. Are there any configuration file
where we can configure the host access ( wich user is to access to
wich service ) ?
( sor
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 19:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And if I'm not mistaken, if they are somehow now able to execute the
> chsh command, then they have a valid shell account they can log in
> to. :-(
>
> While they shouldn't be able to run chsh, or the equivalent, putting
> their shell i
> > Good idea! But is it a Good Thing? mhhh... yes, it seems!
> > Ok, as a definitive solution I'll do it and update to
> You definitly don't have to update to iptables and 2.4 kernels
> to NAT.
Yes, but in the future...
> > By the way, I have to patch the kernel 2.2.17 (or 18 or 19)
> > to
Recently an uncommon error has begun appearing in the logs of only one of
my servers:
Jun 27 17:06:23 karma sshd[31816]: Setting tty modes failed: Invalid
argument
I have no clue about what it could be due to.
Any help would be appreciated.
--
Luca Gibelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 02:49:20AM +0200, Jean-Marc Boursot wrote:
> You create the link ftponly:
> ln -s /bin/ftponly /bin/false
>
> You add /bin/ftponly in /etc/shells.
And if I'm not mistaken, if they are somehow now able to execute the
chsh command, then they have a valid shell account they
Reidar Krogstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And why not /bin/true ?
> When I add ftp-only users I set their shell to /bin/true.
> That makes them able to log in with ftp without access to a shell.
[snip]
Personal preference in choosing shells: if they have access to a service on
the box, /bin/
Hey,
this is what Proftpd-Docs say.
requirevalidshell is by default set to on. So proftpd will not allow logins
from users whose shell is /bin/false, since this one is not listet in
/etc/shells to be a valid shell.
Syntax: RequireValidShell on|off
Default: on
Context: server config, , ,
Modul
And why not /bin/true ?
When I add ftp-only users I set their shell to /bin/true.
That makes them able to log in with ftp without access to a shell.
At 20:54 26.06.2001 -0700, Brandon High wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:36:27AM +0200, Jean-Marc Boursot wrote:
> >
> > > ln -s /bin/ftponly /bin
Thanks for all your answers.
With that I suppose that "proftpd" does not accept users with the
"/bin/false" shell, isn that true ?
Another question related to this one. Are there any configuration file
where we can configure the host access ( wich user is to access to
wich service ) ?
( so
> > Good idea! But is it a Good Thing? mhhh... yes, it seems!
> > Ok, as a definitive solution I'll do it and update to
> You definitly don't have to update to iptables and 2.4 kernels
> to NAT.
Yes, but in the future...
> > By the way, I have to patch the kernel 2.2.17 (or 18 or 19)
> > t
Hello
I have ippl installed and have started it as 'nohup ippl -n' 8 days ago. It
has worked well, but now there are two things I wonder about.
- yesterday there were 47 echo requests from 30 different origins within half
an hour. This hasn't happened the 8 days before. The only way I can expl
Hello
I have ippl installed and have started it as 'nohup ippl -n' 8 days ago. It
has worked well, but now there are two things I wonder about.
- yesterday there were 47 echo requests from 30 different origins within half
an hour. This hasn't happened the 8 days before. The only way I can exp
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 05:54, Brandon High wrote:
>
> Perhaps a silly question, but why not just set the shell to
> /bin/false?
You can. However, with ftponly, you can have 3 user levels:
false -> only mail
ftponly -> mail + FTP
??sh -> mail, FTP and shell
JM
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 05:54, Brandon High wrote:
>
> Perhaps a silly question, but why not just set the shell to
> /bin/false?
You can. However, with ftponly, you can have 3 user levels:
false -> only mail
ftponly -> mail + FTP
??sh -> mail, FTP and shell
JM
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
> oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Hi. I uploaded a version of PAM today that fails to minimally work.
> >> > If you install this package, the main PAM module (pam_unix) fails
to
> >> > load. This means that login, su and other programs that ask for a
> >> > password all fail.
> >
21 matches
Mail list logo
