DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=YqYMc7If7VvAJY7YOCoqewKdUHdzQ4A4RqXJW+lCIt/B8rT6qWYjU
	PWjGu+A6oFkn9S3UcOpWtRj6I93Z/T1hOS2Ibs0VLesYYojF8TT+uhtNoG/ctjx/
	H9TwNzp8dfsifOV9j324BbxhZu8cBR0Z+73pjKmSwqjVpWshimVivE=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:11:01 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Possible Security Hole in SSHD w/ CYGWIN?
Message-ID: <20160215121101.GC7085@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <019c01d163bc$fe2fc500$fa8f4f00$@comcast.net> <CANnLRdhVrFcveO_jKb3_x=44WMJNO33DPnsJZ12Wus3U7Wo_fQ@mail.gmail.com> <019e01d163c2$d678c7e0$836a57a0$@comcast.net> <023901d165e4$925507d0$b6ff1770$@comcast.net> <87d1s1c8ld.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <CACoZoo3R4CDcgTMMex9QZ=Wh9a8CDvyUHpqj5+Br5xYFvGHvuQ@mail.gmail.com> <87a8n38t3r.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <CACoZoo3831x0PVOQ9j6zh+Q4EE4-LFNV7KQsgeyooPJmvM7qVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACoZoo3831x0PVOQ9j6zh+Q4EE4-LFNV7KQsgeyooPJmvM7qVA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

--eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 14 13:36, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> I think the key point is that if no network password is stored using
> the "passwd -R" option, then there should be absolutely no network
> access at all in the current code/design, not a fall through to the
> cyg_server account's network access, regardless of how much or little
> network access that account has.

The problem is this:

I'm not aware of any explicit OS call which allows the process calling
CreateProcessAsUser to drop network credentials of the *caller* in the
child process running under another user token.

In fact, I'm not even aware of any call which allows to drop network
credentials even for the calling process, and that would be the wrong
thing to do anyway.

This is a clear cut case of "I need help" and "Patches gratefully
accepted".


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=wYXc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3--