Dropbear patch suggestion
keesan at sdf.lonestar.org
Fri Apr 4 23:56:25 WST 2008
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 03 April 2008 21:32:05 sindi keesan wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On Thursday 03 April 2008 16:13:43 sindi keesan wrote:
>>>> I don't know where shadow came from or why it appears not to work.
>> It came from the original setup, where root and user had blank passwords.
>> Apparently the busybox passwd changed the passwords in passwd but not in
>> shadow, and dropbear looked at shadow but not at passwd to decide that my
>> passwords were blank. When I boot and log in passwd seems to be
>> consulted, not shadow. Maybe someone would like to patch dropbear to look
>> at BOTH files (passwd as well as shadow) before decided there are blank
> It's more that the spec says that _if_ there is a shadow file, the password
> should live there. They only live in /etc/passwd on systems that haven't got
> shadow password support.
When I log in, why does my system consult passwd and not shadow?
> So your system was in a weird state. Not really dropbear's bug.
Our system is definitely wierd. I seem to have made it worse.
>> I found dropbear at the uclibc site, which I was at because I was
>> compiling busybox, so if it is the busybox passwd (or adduser) that is
>> leaving shadow unchanged while changing passwd, someone else might end up
>> with the same problem as I have.
> Busybox has a CONFIG entry for shadow password support or not. If it's
> creating a shadow file when shadow password support is disabled, that's a
> bug. (Last time I was involved in busybox was the 1.2.2 release...)
I compiled my own busybox and did not understand most of the questions.
Apparently it edited the passwd file without removing shadow. I don't
know why we even had a shadow file when we had no passwords - it came on
the 2-floppy download of our linux.
I told people on our list to delete shadow if they were having problems
> If you're using a version of busybox that's configured not to support shadow
> passwords on a system that's configured to use shadow passwords, that's a
I have compiled 1.1.0 and 1.3.2 of busybox. I compiled without shadow
support. Some day I can redo this.
>>>> I think I ran the busybox passwd (or adduser?) to assign passwords.
>>>> In another version of this distro, I used a package provided by the
>>>> distro to create a user and assign passwords to user and root, and there
>>>> is no 'shadow' file there, and dropbear works 'out of the box' (once I
>>>> make the rsa key).
>>> You used two different passwd programs, one of which supported shadow
>>> passwords and one that didn't. You wound up with /etc in a fairly insane
>> The shadow file was there before I added passwords. I used one program
>> per distro. Manually removing shadow fixed my problem.
>> My setup worked until now. (I am often surprised when things work).
> If you were only using the busybox utilities, they sound like they were
> configured to ignore /etc/shadow.
Yes. At least busybox is consistent even if I was not.
>>>> This distro is not intended to be highly secure. It is for older
>>>> hardware and to learn on.
>>> It doesn't have to be secure it just has to be consistent.
>> I will mention to others on the list that they need to remove shadow if
>> they add passwords to BL 2.
> Or they could fix their busybox .config...
They are probably not using my busybox, which I compiled myself, but some
user adding program from Slackware. The later version of our linux does
not come with shadow.
>>> Linux security is a whole big issue of its own, worth of at least a
>>> semester long undergraduate course.
>> Probably with some prerequisites. This is my first and only linux.
> Have you read Linux From Scratch yet?
I have heard of it. The security site will take me a while to get
> Then you can read the sequels:
> "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
> - Ken Thompson.
keesan at sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
More information about the Dropbear