Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

debian/pam-configs/authd: Be stricter on failures #273

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

3v1n0
Copy link
Collaborator

@3v1n0 3v1n0 commented Mar 26, 2024

  • If authd ignored the request, then we should ignore too.
  • If we can't connect to authd, we should ignore to select next method.
  • If we fail hard for other reason, then user should not be authenticated.

Removed the handling of user_unknown case because we never return this from the PAM module for security reasons.

@3v1n0 3v1n0 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 26, 2024 15:58
 - If authd ignored the request, then we should ignore too.
 - If we can't connect to authd, we should ignore to select next method.
 - If we fail hard for other reason, then user should not be authenticated.

Removed the handling of user_unknown case because we never return this
from the PAM module for security reasons.
@3v1n0 3v1n0 force-pushed the enhance-pam-config-handlers branch from e8e142f to 8f2569e Compare March 26, 2024 15:59
Copy link
Member

@denisonbarbosa denisonbarbosa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes work when logging in with an authd user: great!
But they block login with a local one (possibly due to the previously discussed issues with gdm_authd not setting the previously selected broker correctly for the user): bad!!

This needs to wait until the mentioned issue is fixed.

@3v1n0
Copy link
Collaborator Author

3v1n0 commented Jul 3, 2024

The very same change on failing early was now covered by #406.

However @didrocks we have some cases in which we return pam.ErrAuthinfoUnavail in where we maybe we should ignore, thus the mapping here, but since you tested this lately let me know if it still stands.

@didrocks
Copy link
Member

didrocks commented Jul 3, 2024

that could be a good while, let’s stage this to see when we do trigger this error and see if we need to add it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants