Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Securing X on terminals

2006-12-24 Thread David Kennel
With the NX client setup as described on the wiki and a user logged in an Nmap scan on the clients show port 6000 and 6001 open. 6001 requires authorized access but 6000 does not. I'm not sure if it's exploitable like this but it shows up on our vulnerability scans. David Kennel On

Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Securing X on terminals

2006-12-21 Thread David Kennel
I used the instructions located on the LTSP wiki to install the NX client into the root for the LTSP clients and add the appropriate screen script to start the NX client on boot. That portion of the setup is relatively straightforward and appears to be working beautifully. The

Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Securing X on terminals

2006-12-21 Thread Todd Shoemaker
David- By default the X server should not allow unauthorized access without the magic cookie. In other words, another user on another terminal logged into the same server can't just export DISPLAY=my_terminal:0.0 and run an application on my terminal. If I ran xhost +server they could, but

Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Securing X on terminals

2006-12-20 Thread Todd Shoemaker
David Kennel wrote: I am piloting an LTSP based solution. Due to our security requirements I have had to tweak the configuration quite a bit to harden the system. I have moved the clients to encrypted connections based on FreeNX but the clients are still opening their X11 servers to dog +

[Ltsp-discuss] Securing X on terminals

2006-12-18 Thread David Kennel
I am piloting an LTSP based solution. Due to our security requirements I have had to tweak the configuration quite a bit to harden the system. I have moved the clients to encrypted connections based on FreeNX but the clients are still opening their X11 servers to dog + world. Does anyone