|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | failed password in gnome-screensaver takes waaaaaay too long | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0 | Reporter: | Pete Goodall <pete> |
| Component: | GNOME | Assignee: | Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | jsuchome, security-team |
| Version: | RC 4 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | i686 | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Other | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
Pete Goodall
2005-10-03 15:22:59 UTC
I think it's to make a brute-force attempt to guess your password take longer than it would otherwise. It's very useful against net-based attacks; I'm not sure it's necessary for local logins. Yes, thats what's happening - it a general PAM setting. There is a yast setting, Security and Users -> Local Security, "Delay after Incorrect Login Attempt". Changing the default is a yast team and security team issue. I personally think 3 seconds is too high. Well, YaST just displays whats in the sysconfig file. I'm not aware that YaST actually defines this value. It's FAIL_DELAY in /etc/login.defs -> Thorsten, what do you think about changing the default value? Do I get this right? This is an enhancement according to the standard-value of LOGIN_DELAY in /etc/login.defs? Actually, the default-value was always 3 seconds as long as I can think... but indeed one of the first things I ordinarily do after an installation is to reduce this value. Because for normal purposes it _is_ to high. Would nice to lower this value to, let's say, 1? Assigning this to the yast2-security-maintainer. I'm all for changing the value, but the wait in gnome-screensaver is definitely longer than 3 seconds. I just typed in the wrong password twice (purposely) and counted the time it took. With a slow count I got 11 and 15 seconds. I can time it more accurately if you like, but it seems there is something else causing a further delay. I'm not responsible for the default value (YaST doesn't set the default); Thorsten is. If somebody does not like the default, he can change it. Since there always a few people who don't like a default, I will not change it. Ok... Thorsten, I don't think this has anything to do with the FAIL_DELAY value, so don't worry about that. I just changed the FAIL_DELAY value to 4, 1, 0 and even 30(!), and there was absolutely no affect what so ever. Afaict this has nothing to do with FAIL_DELAY. In addition, I timed the delay slightly more accurately by using a stop watch. Without fail it took about 11.14 seconds to return the message of "Password check failed!". That is timing from the time I press the [ Enter ] key on the keyboard to the time I get that message. There is something else going on here. So we should adjust the rest of the report. gnome-screensaver (and xscreensaver) fail over to also trying the root password, which would add additional time. That doesn't really explain why it seems to ignore FAIL_DELAY, does it? Each attempt would presumably have the failed delay - ie your user and the the root user. I misunderstood, you'd already reduced the delay. Rodrigo, can you check this out? gnome-screensaver just calls /sbin/unix2_chkpwd command. Maybe that is the one delaying? Could be - the setup seems a little odd. man unix2_chkpwd indicates it only works with the pam_unix module - shouldn't we just be using the regular pam stuff? OTOH, we (suse distro) apparently wrote this support, so I'm not clear on the history here. IIRC pam_unix2 is more versatile (NIS+ etc) and not as broken as pam_unix according to it's author. One major application visible difference between the two is that pam_unix2 does not fork authentication helpers by itself to read eg /etc/shadow. You always have to call pam_unix2 with sufficient permissions. Therefore the setgid shadow unix2_chkpwd helper is used. The helper is really only suitable for simple password based authentication though, it doesn't offer a full pam interface. The fact that it doesn't offer a full pam interface leads me to believe we should no longer be using it because of upcoming active directory and edir support for logins (among other things). *** Bug 152357 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** This is fixed in upstream g-s which is now submitted to autobuild |