Re: [cobalt-users] ssh stopped working and can't login as root

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wayne Sagar wrote:

> As usual Jeff, great reply! So if I understand correctly, WinSCP2 will let
> me choose between asskey and binary, similar to the way WSFTP will... Very
> cool!

Yes.  While I own WS_FTP Pro, I don't use it too often to administer
RaQs, only for anonymous ftp.

> I *think* this is also what I'm doing with sites. I only have a couple that
> I am not the manager of and the only person who uploads anything to them. I
> try to lock email accounts to a separate, non privlidged user.. Quick
> question relating to this. I keep FTP server off, unless I'm using it or if
> someone else needs it. Which conveniently at this point is rare and I'm
> quite familiar with the users who need it.. But it is a problem at times.

Most of us don't have that luxury; our users need to upload via ftp. 
Every daemon that allows connection from the outside world is another
"hole" that can be exploited.  If you want a secure RaQ, just disconnect
the ethernet cable <wry grin>.  Of course it won't be very useful then.

Security is always a tradeoff between security and usability.

> How much am I gaining in security by keeping it off.

Some.  In my opinion, not enough to cause my customers the inconvience
of not having 24/7 ftp access to their sites.

> I see a number of
> anonymous FTP attempts when it is on in my logs and, as always, lots of
> probes to port 21 at all times. Since getting hacked (by the bind deal about
> a year ago) I've been probably a bit "paranoid" about security.. some would
> say to obsession, am I ganing anything by keeping FTP server off most of the
> time?

Yes you are.  The question has to be how much, and at what cost.  I
consider proftpd to be relatively secure, and I leave it on all the
time.  I also use it to run ftp.nobaloney.net, and I find it's
implementation of anonymous ftp to be quite secure (it doesn't use
outside programs for ls or for anything else; it uses it's own code
entirely for these functions).

> Related question.. How much risk is involved in giving shell access to a
> virtual site if I'm the only one that has access to that site.. ie I'm the
> administrator of the virt? This would be so I could use Winscp2 instead of
> FTP to administer that site? I could upload to the site as server admin with
> Winscp2 and then chown the files but sometimes there are 200 files that go
> up at one time and that would be an added hassle.

Again it's a hole.  This is one we've decided to NOT allow on our RaQs. 
We don't give our customers shell access, and we only allow shell access
to our main admin account.  This means of course that moving data into
sites via Winscp2 is a two-step process, once into ~/ftptransfer (which
we created), and then we log in through SSH and move the files to the
right place, as root.

Our siteadmin accounts and passwords are only for ftp and for the
"catchall" site email to be accepted and forwarded, we've got no problem
letting our clients use these when they administer their own RaQs.  When
we need to ftp, we use WinSCP2 and the two-step moving process.

> Ahh.. I guess this is good, and bad all at the same time then. And I guess,
> since I need to offer it (FP) I'd rather not even know how it works and what
> holes it opens, it'll just give me something else to fret about!

No, your best bet is to know exactly how it weakens your RaQ.

> As always, thanks for all the good info Jeff!

You're welcome <blush>.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Linux and Cobalt/Sun/RaQ Consulting
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 778-9980  *  fax: (702) 548-9484