
mpatton at inforelay
Aug 9, 2012, 8:38 PM
Post #2 of 2
(224 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: AllowUsers "logic" and failure to indicate bad configuration
[In reply to]
|
|
> way. It should not be necessary for AllowUsers to be the superset of > AllowGroups. Sorry, I meant to say AllowGroups should not have to include at least one GID from each of AllowUsers. I forgot to add that a case could be made for the Allow/Deny directives to be valid within all Match{} stanzas as well. Right now there is only one global rule. However, it makes perfect sense to want to selectively override it. At first blush I thought that maybe the rules specified in Match{} would just be used to "flip" the logic arrived at from the main body; eg. AllowUsers could effectively negate any rejection reached by the main body logic. Then I thought that maybe it would be better to treat it as a complete substitution of the matching global rule directive. To me, this seems to be the most elegant but will have to be clearly spelled out in documentation. The 3rd option would call for ignoring the entire global rule in favor of building a new one based strictly off the directives contained within Match{}. Yes, in most cases they'll be a lot of cut/pasting from the global rule and tweaking them to taste, but the intent of the stanza is unambiguous. If we were to implement option 2, specifying all 4 directives would achieve the same result as option 3. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev [at] mindrot https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
|