[sudo-users] Offtopic: Re: sudo + ldap - nisNetgroupTriple
JR.Aquino at citrixonline.com
Wed May 26 11:28:16 EDT 2010
Right, thats why I said role based access.
the sudo role can contain:
I am not suggesting that the hostgroups or usergroups as they are
represented in the role should double as both login and escalation
rights. I define those separately with sudoHost vs hostGroup and
sudoUser vs userGroup.
However I DO want to utilize the same sets of hostgroups / usergroups
as they are static containers that define groups of hosts or users.
In this demonstration, username has login and sudo access to hosta,
hostb, hostc, but it _only_ has login access to hostd, hoste, hostf.
Does this help ease the confusion?
On May 26, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Patrick Spinler wrote:
> On 05/26/2010 09:16 AM, Jr Aquino wrote:
>> As such, I'd like to have a list of hosts that both sudo and pam_ldap
>> can look to without having to duplicate the same data in 2 different
> Here's where I'd urge you to give careful consideration to your
> approach. You're talking about using the same object type for
> semantically different purposes, and in fact to contain different
> *) A group of hosts for use in sudo rules
> *) A group of users for use in sudo rules
> *) A group of users to provision to a host
> In fact, these are all different, and *should* be represented
> differently in your repository. We do something like this:
> auth_<somegroup> - a list of people provisioned to a host
> sudo_<somegroup> - a list of people granted a specific sudo command
> hgrp_<somegroup> - a list of hosts
> Even in the first two instances, provisioning v. sudo, I *want* to
> these separate. For example, when an intern joins our unix team for a
> summer assignment, I probably want to allow that intern to log into
> machines so she can e.g. gather configuration info, but I probably
> want to grant that intern the full sudo rights I give normal unix
> -- Pat
More information about the sudo-users