Having pam_unix set to "sufficient" means early-succeeding account
management group, as soon as pam_unix.so is succeeding.
This is not sufficient. For example, nixos modules might install nss
modules for user lookup, so pam_unix.so succeeds, and we end the stack
successfully, even though other pam account modules might want to do
more extensive checks.
Other distros seem to set pam_unix.so to 'required', so if there are
other pam modules in that management group, they get a chance to do some
validation too.
For SSSD, @PsyanticY already added a workaround knob in
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/31969, while stating this should
be the default anyway.
I did some thinking in what could break - after this commit, we require
pam_unix to succeed, means we require `getent passwd $username` to
return something.
This is the case for all local users due to the passwd nss module, and
also the case for all modules installing their nss module to
nsswitch.conf - true for ldap (if not explicitly disabled) and sssd.
I'm not so sure about krb5, cc @eqyiel for opinions. Is there some nss
module loaded? Should the pam account module be placed before pam_unix?
We don't drop the `security.pam.services.<name?>.sssdStrictAccess`
option, as it's also used some lines below to tweak error behaviour
inside the pam sssd module itself (by changing it's 'control' field).
This is also required to get admin login for Google OS Login working
(#51566), as their pam_oslogin_admin accounts module takes care of sudo
configuration.
I think pam_lastlog is the only thing that writes to these files in
practice on a modern Linux system, so in a configuration that doesn't
use that module, we don't need to create these files.
I used tmpfiles.d instead of activation snippets to create the logs.
It's good enough for upstream and other distros; it's probably good
enough for us.
* bemenu: init at 2017-02-14
* velox: 2015-11-03 -> 2017-07-04
* orbment, velox: don't expose subprojects
the development of orbment and velox got stuck
their subprojects (bemenu, dmenu-wayland, st-wayland) don't work correctly outside of parent projects
so hide them to not confuse people
swc and wld libraries are unpopular and unlike wlc are not used by anything except velox
* pythonPackages.pydbus: init at 0.6.0
* way-cooler: 0.5.2 -> 0.6.2
* nixos/way-cooler: add module
* dconf module: use for wayland
non-invasive approach for #31293
see discussion at #32210
* sway: embed LD_LIBRARY_PATH for #32755
* way-cooler: switch from buildRustPackage to buildRustCrate #31150
Looking at upstream git repo (git://github.com/Yubico/pam-u2f.git) the
docs initially said the path was ~/.yubico/u2f_keys, but it was later
changed to ~/.config/Yubico/u2f_keys (in 2015).
I have run pam_u2f.so with "debug" option and observed that the correct
path indeed is ~/.config/Yubico/u2f_keys.
Currently, ecryptfs support is coupled to `security.pam.enableEcryptfs`, but one
might want to use ecryptfs without enabling the PAM functionality. This commit
splits it out into a `boot.supportedFilesystems` switch.
perlPackages.TextWrapI18N: init at 0.06
perlPackages.Po4a: init at 0.47
jade: init at 1.2.1
ding-libs: init at 0.6.0
Switch nscd to no-caching mode if SSSD is enabled.
abbradar: disable jade parallel building.
Closes#21150
Add a module to make options to pam_oath module configurable.
These are:
- enable - enable the OATH pam module
- window - number of OTPs to check
- digits - length of the OTP (adds support for two-factor auth)
- usersFile - filename to store OATH credentials in
Run pam_unix an additional time rather than switching it from sufficient
to required. This fixes a potential security issue for
ecryptfs/pam_mount users as with pam_deny gone, if cfg.unixAuth = False
then it is possible to login without a password.
- upgrade 106 -> 108
- fix passphrase rewrapper (password changing should now work fine) as
discussed on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/1486470
- add lsof dependency so ecryptfs-migrate-home should work out of the
box
Enables attaching AppArmor profiles at the user/group level.
This is not intended to be used directly, but as part of a
role-based access control scheme. For now, profile attachment
is 'session optional', but should be changed to 'required' once
a more comprehensive solution is in place.
