Re: What to do about nologin(8)?

John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday 23 February 2004 02:58 pm, Doug Rabson wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 17:45, Colin Percival wrote:
>>
>>>   For security reasons, nologin(8) must be statically linked;
>>>as a result, adding logging has increased the binary size ...
>>
>>How about:
>>
>>7: Use 'system("logger ...") to log the failed login?
> 
> Wouldn't that be subject to the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH concerns since logger is 
> dynamically linked and you could trojan it's libc?

Not if nologin clears the environment first.

Related to this, I think I've found a solution to
the underlying problem:  ignore login's "-p"
option if the user shell isn't in /etc/shells.

This blocks environment-poisoning attacks against
nologin via /usr/bin/login.

With this change, it might even be possible to go
back to the shell script version of nologin.

Tim Kientzle