[NTLUG:Discuss] Redhat, xdm, and cooser

[Greg Edwards]

kbrannen at gte.net wrote:
>> Actually xhost is not the normal way.  It's the way that techy types 
>> know and also the very-very insecure way.  If most IT upper management 
>> types knew their engineers were using xhost (and the ramifications) 
>> they'd flip.
> 
> 
> Well, if I'd said "xhost +" without the machine name (or IP as that's 
> what the name resolves to), I'd understand your comment.  Can you 
> elaborate on the insecurity when the machine is specified?
> 
> Or are you thinking about the when the "other" machine is a server with 
> multiple people on it, so someone else could then start a program on his 
> machine?  That would be a problem and should be avoided, but practically 
> speaking, I have rarely run into that situation. (though maybe I've just 
> been lucky :-)
> 
>>

> 
> Kevin
> 


 From "man xhost"

=======================================================================
The xhost program is used to add and delete host names or user names to 
the list allowed to make connections to the X server.  In the  case of 
hosts, this provides a rudimentary form of privacy control and security. 
  It is only sufficient for a workstation (single  user) environment, 
although it does limit the worst abuses.  Environments which require 
more sophisticated measures should implement the user-based mechanism 
or use the hooks in the protocol for passing other authentication data 
to the server.
=======================================================================

If you "xhost +" an allowed machine (added to the local host list) and 
forget to remove it then anyone who logs into the allowed machine can 
access the host.  Does not matter who the user is since the machine is 
allowed.  If you "xhost +" without a machine name you might as well be 
running M$ Windows.  While xhost is a useful tool it's just not a 
desirable tool if security is of concern.

The chooser package is a more complete solution IMHO.  With xhost you 
have to step through the manual process each time you connect while once 
a chooser is setup it operates just as if you were logged in to the 
local machine.  The machine to machine protocol is well established and 
secure.  You are run through normal login on the remote just as if you 
were sitting at the console.

The problem has been that Linux hasn't had a good chooser implementation 
before.  I can't say if the current chooser is any good because I 
haven't looked at it in over a year.

-- 
Greg Edwards
New Age Software, Inc. - http://www.nas-inet.com
======================================================
Galactic Outlaw        - http://goutlaw.nas-inet.com
   The ultimate cyberspace adventure!