On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (30/09/15 09:38), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>Hi,
>
>to help the OpenSCAP integration, I prepared a wiki page that contains
>options which have a security impact -- either positive (drop root) or
>negative (ignore certificate validation issues).
>
>I also tried to explain the effect of the options along with the
>description. There are some more items that can be included, but I
>wasn't sure about them myself, like:
> * should obfuscated passwords be mentioned? I wasn't sure because on
> one hand it really doesn't provide any benefit, on the other hand,
> the option can be used to check a compliance box that requires no
> passwords be stored in files..
> * should the page warn against the
> auth-option-that-shall-not-be-mentioned or politely deny its
> existence? :-)
> * What about fd_limit ? Should resource consumption be considered
> a security property, especially if we already honor system default? I
> think here the default is enough, so I didn't document that option.
>
>Please provide your comments or edit the wiki directly. Thanks!
I'm not sure about security implication but it might be good
to avoid using plantext passwords for authtok in sssd.conf.
ldap_default_authtok_type = password.
I'm not sure about obfuscated_password.
What do you think?
It's better to use a different mechanism than password in the first
place :-)
The obfuscation is just that -- it hides the password, but the password
still can be retrieved. So IMO the obfuscated password is more or less
helpful for auditors that need a check a box that says that no passwords
are allowed in config files..
So I think in this case the OpenSCAP team must decide what exactly they
are after..