feature request: "remote user is root, make remote owner is foo"

[travis+ml-rsync at subspacefield.org]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:34:44PM -0400, Brian Cuttler wrote:
> As a matter of principle, SOP, we don't like to ssh/rsync as root
> and generally don't allow root ssh/rsync into a box. Better/safer
> to move the security stuff to a lower powered user if you can.

I'm familiar with the argument.  Let me give you my take on it:

http://www.subspacefield.org/security/security_concepts/index.html#tth_sEc11.9.9

Downside: Direct root logins make accountability harder - you have
          only the source IP to go on.

Upside: You can back up the entire [file] system remotely.

        You can rsync stuff owned by users without valid login shells or
        authorized_keys.

For me, I'm the only root user, and only allow key-based logins, so there's
no downside.

I'll look into your SGID directory idea for group ownership.

PS: rsync kinda assumes when doing --preserve-uids that UIDs (or maybe
    it was user names) map.  When they don't exist on target system,
    you either get "owned by destination user" (no --preserve-uids),
    or "owned by wrong user", both of which have drawbacks.  It'd be
    nice to have a way to map users, but not a must-have.
-- 
A Weapon of Mass Construction
My emails do not have attachments; it's a digital signature that your mail
program doesn't understand. | http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ 
If you are a spammer, please email john at subspacefield.org to get blacklisted.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/attachments/20100811/14105d2f/attachment.pgp>