Re: [SPAM] Password strength bug
Drew Wells <[email protected]> Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:18:58 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.vpopmail |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060101000803050007040905
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 09/15/2015 03:27 PM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote:
> Il 15/09/2015 15:03, Drew Wells ha scritto:
>> On 09/15/2015 11:00 AM, Tonix - Antonio Nati wrote:
>>> Il 15/09/2015 11:03, Drew Wells ha scritto:
>>>> In vpopmail-5.5.0 there seems to be a bug in vpopmail.c where the
>>>> password strength is checked even if a password isn't used (such as
>>>> when -e is used to add the encrypted password). Patch attached.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not understand the problem.
>>>
>>> Of course password strenght is checked every time, and if it founds
>>> a null/empty password it gives error back if password must have a
>>> minimum lenght.
>>>
>>> Your patch instead permit to have null password even if strenght
>>> policy would not allow it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tonino
>> The problem is is that vadduser.c can call vadduser() (in vpopmail.c)
>> without a password. It does this in the situation where vadduser.c
>> has had the options "-e" or "-n" passed to it, so if this is the case
>> the password can't be checked againts the password strength rules.
>> The underlying function vadduser() needs to be able to add a user
>> with no password.
>>
>
> I realize additional controls are done before calling vadduser(); but
> I personally would prefer an explicit parameter added to vadduser for
> avoiding password check (it may be a further parameter having default
> = "check").
> It would make developers more protected against unwanted security bugs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tonino
>
I agree that it would be better to explicitly indicate to vadduser()
that no password is wanted. I even looked quicky at setting the
password to NULL to indicate no password, but both this and an explicit
parameter would need changes to all the backends, so have left it as is
for now.
!DSPAM:55faa1a741551399290072!
--------------060101000803050007040905
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/15/2015 03:27 PM, Tonix - Antonio
Nati wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 15/09/2015 15:03, Drew Wells ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/15/2015 11:00 AM, Tonix -
Antonio Nati wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 15/09/2015 11:03, Drew Wells
ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]"
type="cite">In vpopmail-5.5.0 there seems to be a bug in
vpopmail.c where the password strength is checked even if a
password isn't used (such as when -e is used to add the
encrypted password). Patch attached. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">I do not understand the
problem.<br>
<br>
Of course password strenght is checked every time, and if
it founds a null/empty password it gives error back if
password must have a minimum lenght.<br>
<br>
Your patch instead permit to have null password even if
strenght policy would not allow it.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Tonino</font></font><br>
</blockquote>
The problem is is that vadduser.c can call vadduser() (in
vpopmail.c) without a password. It does this in the situation
where vadduser.c has had the options "-e" or "-n" passed to it,
so if this is the case the password can't be checked againts the
password strength rules. The underlying function vadduser()
needs to be able to add a user with no password.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I realize additional controls are done before calling vadduser();
but I personally would prefer an explicit parameter added to
vadduser for avoiding password check (it may be a further
parameter having default = "check").<br>
It would make developers more protected against unwanted security
bugs.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Tonino<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I agree that it would be better to explicitly indicate to vadduser()
that no password is wanted. I even looked quicky at setting the
password to NULL to indicate no password, but both this and an
explicit parameter would need changes to all the backends, so have
left it as is for now.<br>
!DSPAM:55faa1a741551399290072!
</body>
</html>
--------------060101000803050007040905--