A few swat comments. was:Re: [Samba] Does the SWAT tool come
with the Red Hat 8.0 distribution?
John H Terpstra
jht at samba.org
Tue Mar 11 08:56:06 GMT 2003
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, mark wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
> John H Terpstra <jht at samba.org> wrote:
> > I like this suggestion. Could you specify your dream wishes more
> > clearly please.
> > ie: I run SWAT and write the back-up file. Now I run it again and
> > overwrite the backup file again? Where is the gain then? Do I only
> > back it up if it does not exist? Then what about subsequent changes I
> > make? Should it back it up to a file with time and date extensions? If
> > so, homw many backups should I keep?
> > Your suggestion perplexees me. I want some consensus on this before I
> > change anything here.
> Consensus? Dude! You are a powerful overlord with cvs access! You
> don't need no stinking consensus!
The biggest challenge of all is to have power and then use it only
> You are right about the difficulty of figuring out how many times to
> back up a smb.conf file. In the few minutes I've though about it, I
> came up with the idea of having swat itself write a few extra bytes at
> the top of the file along the lines of "#Swat generated". or
> #0xaed9883344c2a2. Something to indicate that this file should not be
> backed up. Really what I would like is if I have a smb.conf file that
> I've hand edited I would like for smb.conf to back that file up. So if
> a smb.conf file didn't have the above mentioned few bytes it would be
> backed up.
If you provide patches I'll do my best to integrate them. :) Other than
that, I'll take your comments on advice and will do something next time I
make a change.
Anyone else have any suggestions or wishes here?
> Maybe just a warning along the lines of "about to overwrite your
> smb.conf, would you like to save your original?"
Ok. I'll implement that one.
> Better yet, dump the entire contents of the smb.conf file into
> /var/log/messages every time! Saved for eternity without the need for
> nasty directories filled with smb.conf.1, smb.conf.tar.gz,
> smb.conf.original, smb.conf.originalthatreallyworks....Or have swat mail
> smb.conf to samba at lists.samba.org so it is archived on the web for when
> someone needs it. Wait. Did I just digress into the realms of
> silliness? I've got to get more sleep.
Hmmm. Let we wake up on that first!
> > But by default, it should be blocked by TCP Wrappers from anything
> > except 127.0.0.1. Where is the problem?
Note: This is the default case for Linux systems that use xinetd.
> Does swat itself edit the hosts.allow file when it is installed? There
No. Xinetd handles that in it's config files.
> are a couple of issues here, my personal failings as a "sysadmin" (in
> quotes because I only do this stuff at home) and a philosophy of
> On my failings, I try not to use inetd on machines I have control over.
> Which means I didn't really know about hosts.allow. Like I should
> have. But I did spend this morning editing my inetd.conf,
> hosts.allow, reading man pages and view the contents of
> /var/log/messages in order to understand what was going on. Live and
> learn. So I just plain didn't know that access could be denied that
> On the philosophy of security, I think that using all interfaces makes
> the machine, well, promiscuous. It just seems like a daemon should do
> as little as needed and should show itself as little as possible until
> instructed otherwise. As an example, the *mbd daemons have the
> interfaces options in smb.conf. Why have that option when they can be
> run from inetd and thus covered by tcpwrappers? I assume because we
> don't necessarily want those services running on certain interfaces.
> Where they might be exploited in the future by some heretofore unkown
> uber-exploit. I just think that swat is in a similar situation.
More input here would be welcome. I do not want to make changes that will
satisfy a minority and aggrevate most users. Personally, I believe that
SWAT should only ever be run locally. If you need to access it remotely,
then use an SSL wrapper.
> ps How do I make umlauts on an english keyboard. uber-exploit would
> look so much cooler with the umlauts.
And Santa-Klaus looks so much cooler in a swim-suit! :)
- John T.
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org
More information about the samba