On 08/01/2016 10:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 10:00:05AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 03:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:16:16PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>> I've noticed the behavior described by this LSN with libvirt+Xen. Config
>>> containing <graphics type='vnc' passwd=''/> allows any
client to
>>> connect with no authentication check. I asked about this on the Xen security
>>> list and was told that "libxl interprets an empty password in the
caller's
>>> configuration to mean that passwordless access should be permitted". The
libvirt
>>> domXML docs are not clear on semantics of empty vnc password, only stating
"The
>>> passwd attribute provides a VNC password in clear text".
>>>
>>> Should the libvirt domXML vnc passwd documentation be amended to define the
>>> semantics of an empty string in the passwd attribute? Is the behavior
>>> hypervisor-dependent as the documentation in qemu.conf suggests?
>> I guess we've never clarified the semantics in any cross-hypervisor
>> manner. I think the fixed QEMU behaviour is the most sane from a
>> portability POV - the Xen (and broken QEMU) behaviour was effectively
>> overloading 2 settings onto one attribute. ie it was (ab)using a zero
>> length password as a way to change the authentication method.
> I can't get past thinking the fixed QEMU behavior only changed the overloading
> of passwd from "disable auth" to "disable vnc access" :-).
It is the distinction between what auth method is configured, vs what
passwords are valid for the auth method. That an empty password is
blocking access is a characteristic of the auth method.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
>> We should
>> always have distinct XML attributes for distinct settings. IOW, any toggle
>> betweeen password and no-auth should an explicit setting and a zero length
>> password should not magically change that.
> Shouldn't an empty password simply be rejected? I can't set a zero-length
> password on my UNIX account
>
> jfehlig@talkeetna:~> passwd
> Changing password for jfehlig.
> (current) UNIX password:
> New password: <enter>
> BAD PASSWORD: it is WAY too short
> passwd: password unchanged
> jfehlig@talkeetna:~>
To start rejecting it now would be a non-backwards compatible change in
our behaviour, so we can't really do that.
Ah, right. I think that was mentioned in one of the threads discussing the patch.
Regards,
Jim