Subject: Using PAM an the SSH Protocol

From: Darren Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT)

Some of you may have noticed that SSH Communications Security has
announced support for PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules) in its
latest Windows platform clients and support for PAM first appeared in
their 2.4.0 product.  OpenSSH also has support for PAM in the portable
release.

PAM was originally developed by Sun Microsystems Inc (details at:
http://sun.com/solaris/pam) as a means of abstracting out of programs
like login and telnetd the user interaction required to authenticate
the user, decide (based on access control policies) if they should
access the system at this time and then setup their local credentials.

At the present time there are (at least) two different methods of using
PAM in the currently available SSH protocol implementations.

In the SSH Communications Security implementation the client and server
must agree to use the authentication method "[email-masked]" otherwise
no PAM code is run.

In the OpenSSH implementation PAM is used to authenticate the user if
Keyboard Interactive is used (I'm talking about v2 protocol support, I
know it is slightly different in v1).  Regardless of wither or not
Keyboard Interactive authentiation is run the PAM functions that deal
with account management (pam_acct_mgmt) and setting of credentials
(pam_setcred) are always run.

What does this mean ?

If I have a client connecting to an SSH Communications Security server
that does not understand (or chooses not to send) "[email-masked]" as
an authentication mechanism then the PAM functionality for pam_acct_mgmt
will not get run.  pam_acct_mgmt is responsible for makeing decisions on
wither this user (who is authenticated, either by pam_authenticate or
by other means) is actually allowed to access the system via this service
at this time.

Compare this with the OpenSSH implmentation where pam_acct_mgmt will always
be run so the access restrictions will be correctly enforced.

So isn't this an implmenation issue ?

Tatu and I had a short discussion on this today and decided that at the
present time we are not sure, there may be protocol issues, it might
be that keyboard interactive can't solves them all, it might be limitations
in PAM, or something else.

One thing I am positive about is that if a particular server for
the SSH protocol wants PAM to be used there should be no means for the
client to by pass the access controls regardless of which SSH protocol
authentication is used.  Put another way PAM as a framework should not
be visible to clients; it was only ever intended to be a server side
implementation framework not a network protocol or an authentication
mechanism in its own right ([email-masked] make it an auth mech).

Why am I bringing this up on ietf-ssh ?

I want to gather people who are interesting in helping solve this problem
possible out comes are that there are defiencies in the core SSH protocol,
Keyboard Interactive isn't enough to solve all PAM issues, PAM doesn't
fit well with protocols like SSH (if it is the later then my goal would
be to come up with some best practices on how it can be used and what
limitations there are), or may be it is an implmenation issue - but it is
important because at the moment there are interop problems that have
potential security vulnerabilities in the view of system admins.

If the WG chair believes that this is not an appropriate discussion for
this list then I will arrange to take this offline once the interested
parties have been identified.

Thanks for your time.

Resources:

Sun Microsystems Inc Web Pages on PAM:

http://sun.com/solaris/pam

Open Group Single Sign-On Service (XSSO) - Plugable Authentication:

http://www.opengroup.org/pubs/catalog/p702.htm

--
Darren J Moffat

---

From: Martin Forssen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:11:58 +0200 (MEST)

On 11 Apr, Darren Moffat wrote:
> I want to gather people who are interesting in helping solve this
> problem possible out comes are that there are defiencies in the core
> SSH protocol, Keyboard Interactive isn't enough to solve all PAM
> issues, PAM doesn't fit well with protocols like SSH (if it is the
> later then my goal would be to come up with some best practices on how
> it can be used and what limitations there are), or may be it is an
> implmenation issue - but it is important because at the moment there
> are interop problems that have potential security vulnerabilities in
> the view of system admins.

I am definitely interested in discussing this. I did look into this
issue while I was working with keyboard-interactive and I can try to
recollect my thoughts on the issue from that time.

	/MaF